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

[charles_creech78]

Oh brother......is this the logic of every KJVO? Surely not.....it makes no sense!!:BangHead:

Personally, I don't limit my faith in God's ability to spread His divinely inspired message to just one translation. There is no logic, or sense, in saying "older is better" or "closer" to the word of God. I'm not going to challenge you on your understanding, or lack of, on the history of KJV....rather you might be a interested in learning about how some of the "newer ones" were translated. You might be surprised, and you'll probably not disrespect some of those translators so much. It is a little naive and arrogant to suggest they translated according to their own desires. That is a lot of people who invested a lot of years into something, and you slam them like that, not because of any rational reason, but because "older is better". Give me a break. You're logic makes no sense....but whatever.

See Ed that was posted to me and he did call me naive and arrogant because I did say that they have change the word of God to there own desires. If I said that someone is naive and arrogant because they believe all the KJV bibles are all of Gods word then I would be calling you naive and arrogant because you believe that. But I am not calling you that. I respect you in what you believe and someone should not call someone something because they don't believe the same. I do not have a lack of understanding in the translation. For one if the translaters would read the word of God and stop tring to translate it so much they might see the scripture in Rev. In the Niv it has alot of scripture gone and If the Niv was translated right then there are ALOT of BIBLES miss translated. I don't believe that is the fact of the rest of the bibles. I think when God does a work he does it right. But I am not downing anyone of you for what you want to read. I respect that you believe that. By the way Ed if you are not posting to just me then don't post to my name.

 

[charles_creech78]

If someone wants to be a KJVO kind of person then so be it God bless them. That is there belief and if someone wants to believe that the KJV has been changed then so be it God bless them and if someone believes that it has not been changed then so be it God bless them. I will not judge other for what they believe. I love each and everyone of you. Pray for me because I need it. I ask can you pray for my wife to . She has been having bad head acks. I think you and may God bless all of you.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The comment was made in another forum about those who believe in one version of the Bible. It was said of them they were unbiblical. Any thoughts ?

FIRST, people cannot be "unbiblical"; the question literally asks: is someone {that believes in one version of the Bible} unbiblical? People's opinions on spiritual matters, that is, their interpretation of scriptural doctrines, may be either sound or unsound.

SECOND, what does "believes in one version of the Bible" mean? Does "believes in" mean: 'accept as real', 'place faith', or 'credit with veracity'?

Furthermore, if an individual accepts the existence/truthfulness of more than one (any number: two, three, thirty, etc.) of anything, then that individual also logically accepts the existence/truthfulness of one. There is no exculsivity indicated, that is, there is no 'only' presented in the question. Therefore, I can honestly state that: I believe in many valid Bible versions, AND I believe in this one.

THIRD, what is meant by "Bible"? The English word "bible" does NOT even appear anywhere in the text of the KJV, for example. Of course, the Hebrews would claim that their 'Bible' is God's word (and they would be correct); even though there are many variants among the Hebrew MSS (not to mention the Septuagint translations of the Jewish scriptures). Most genuine Christians also accept some first century Greek writings as canonical (and they would be correct); even though all extant early Greek MSS show variants.

The Holy Spirit only breathed the words into the prophets and apostles once (in ancient languages), and genuine Christians ought to defend the one true message of God (2 Corinthians 11:4) --

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].​

There is only one 'Bible' (in the sence of The Gospel), and many translations of it. Perhaps the question might have been worded as: Is there scriptural support for only one English version being the genuine word of God, to the exclusion of all others? That is a question I could vote on.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I love each and everyone of you. Pray for me because I need it. I ask can you pray for my wife to . She has been having bad head acks. I think you and may God bless all of you.

I love you, brother Charles. I will pray for you and your wife right now. May God bless you both. raying:

 

[Ed Edwards]

I love you, brother Charles. I will pray for you and your wife right now. May God bless you both. raying:

Praying in agreement with Brother Franklinmonroe
IAW (in accordance with):

Mat 18:19-20 (Geneva Bible, 1587 Edition):
Againe, verely I say vnto you, that if two of you shall
agree in earth vpon any thing, whatsoeuer they
shall desire, it shall be giuen them of my Father
which is in heauen.
20 For where two or three are gathered
together in my Name, there am I in the mids of them.

 

[TC]

I am KJV only, my choice, and I have stated my reasons over and over.
I don't NEED another version. I have every chunk of "meat" in this KJV Bible that I need as a maturing Christian.

What YOU do is between YOU and God. But go check out what Chick Publications has to say....

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/translation.asp

I think that's a good enough explanation for me.

I don't know lots of theological arguments. I do know that it works for me.

It's kinda like being a Baptist....some people really rake you over the coals when they find out you are a Baptist, mock you, joke about holy rollers and stuff. But it doesn't change me from being a Baptist.

Debbie Mc

I am already very familiar with the issue of formal vs. dynamic equivalence. Jack Chick does not know Greek or Hebrew, yet promotes himself as a Bible translation expert. He quotes other like-minded people who also do not know Greek or Hebrew to promote his guesswork and opinion as if it were fact. I do not know much Greek or Hebrew, but I do not promote myself as an expert. I am just a well read layman.

 

[dan e.]

Oh, after a weekend away I feel I should put some type of response.

Charles...I'm sorry if you were offended by my remarks, they were in no way intended to be hurtful. I definitely suggest you take a look at the book I recommended. I think you make a lot of statements ABOUT translations without really understanding them. For instance, many people in this thread have commented about things being taken out, added, etc. involving the KJV but you have not commented on that. There have also been some good points made regarding modern translations and having been done using older manuscripts than the KJV, but your replies seem nothing more than a "copy" and "paste". You keep going back to "it is what I believe"....which is why I am confused with the logic you're using. You have also failed to show something substantial in regards to accusing modern translators of translating according to their own desires, and not God's desires....as if the KJV translators are as pure as it gets. So....I hope you understand why I'm so dumfounded at your reasoning. If not.....well, the conversation is useless then.


Anyhow.....:thumbs:

 

[charles_creech78]

The Greek Text of the New International Version
The most significant subject facing the Church in the 21st Century is the Bible, its Greek text, and the way it is translated. Every Christian doctrine is based on the Bible. The way the Bible reads, the words that it has and the words that it does not have, the way the Greek words are translated or poorly translated, all affect the doctrine of the Church. At one point I thought that most translations of the Bible were basically the same except for the modernization of the old English in the KJV. As you will see for yourself, this is not the case. Most of the modern translations do not have every thing that the KJV does, as a result of changes in the Greek texts from which they are translated.

God tells us that the Bible is pure, is truth, and words are not to be added to or removed from it. However when two translations of the Bible say two different things in the same verse, subconsciously people's trust in the purity, and absolute truth of the Bible is eroded. When two translations say different things, which one is truth? Or are they both what God said? Christians then have to become judges of Scripture and pick which reading they like best. Therefore you hear "I like the way it says it in this translation," rather than "This is what God says."

As Christians we need to know what is truth, and what translations of the Bible can be trusted as having all the Words of God. We need a firm foundation, not the shifting sand of Bible versions in which the words are continually changing. My desire is that in the pages of this book you will find which translations can be fully trusted as having all the Words of God, and which translations are based on a Greek text that is constantly changing and can not be trusted as having all the Words of God.

The purpose of this booklet is to share with you what has been removed from and added to the Word of God in the modern Greek text, and to alert you to the seriousness of the problems that result in the NIV as well as most of the other modern Bible translations — The Contemporary English Version, The New American Standard Version, The American Standard Version, The Revised Standard Version, The Living Bible, The New Revised Standard Version, The New Jerusalem Bible, The New American Bible, and others. You will find that these translations, which are translated from the same corrupt modern Greek text as the NIV, are missing many of the same words, phrases, and entire verses as the NIV.

 

[charles_creech78]

The Greek texts
The main problem with the NIV is in the New Testament with the Greek text that it was translated from.

The main issue is not how the NIV translates words, although there are also many problems there and many have documented it, but the Greek text that the NIV was translated from - the United Bible Societies 3rd edition and (UBS 3rd) and the Nestle-Aland text, 26th edition. (These two texts have exactly the same wording.)

There are two main Greek texts used today for translating English Bibles: The Textus Receptus (The Received Text), and the Nestle-Aland/UBS text. This may some times be referred to as the NU text.

 

[charles_creech78]

The preciseness of the Greek language
It is interesting the way that God chose the languages to write down His Word - Hebrew and Greek. The following is from Wisdom Booklet One of the Advanced Training Institute Curriculum:

"The Hebrew language is very picturesque. Its sentences are short and intensely expressive. The Old Testament is primarily biographical. Hebrew uses vivid and bold metaphor, graphically describing events and their results. Hebrew is a very personal language; even nations are given personality. God reveals Himself in descriptive human terms - attributing to Himself human characteristics and emotions - to aid man in understanding His character.

"Greek is a precise, highly technical language. It leaves little room for speculation regarding the intent of the author.

"In the New Testament the explanation of ideas and concepts is paramount. Many of the verses explain and amplify the rich symbolism of the Old Testament.

"Whereas Hebrew was largely confined to the nation of Israel, Greek was a worldwide language and was able to convey clearly and accurately the good news of salvation." 2

The preciseness of the Greek language is an important concept for us to keep in mind. There are those who would like us to think that there is a lot of flexibility and or difficulty in translating from the Greek into English. While that may be true for some Greek words, the preciseness of the Greek language enables us to know with a great deal of certainty what God's Word actually is.

 

[charles_creech78]

There is no ancient manuscript that reads the same as the modern United Bible Societies 3rd edition Greek text!

I discovered that there has never existed an ancient Greek manuscript that reads the same as the Nestle and United Bible Society's Greek text that the NIV, NASB, and most other modern translations are translated from. These modern translations have not been translated from an ancient Greek manuscript, but from a modern man made Greek text that was compiled from a hand full of ancient manuscripts (primarily from 2 manuscripts) which have many variant readings and many omissions. The Nestle Aland and United Bible Society's Greek text (NU Greek text) is the equivalent of a 20th century Greek "manuscript" (The NU is a text not a manuscript because it is not hand written.) since no one has an ancient Greek manuscript that reads the same as it does. Therefore the NIV is not translated from the oldest manuscripts but from a new Greek text. This is an important point to remember

The NU text is an eclectic Greek text. This is the term used in the preface of the NIV Bible to describe it. The term "eclectic" is defined by The World Book Dictionary 1982 edition as: "Selecting and using what seems best from various sources, systems, or schools of thought." Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) defines eclectic as: "Selecting; choosing; not original nor following any one model or leader, but choosing at will from the doctrines, works, etc., of others." The NU is a text that has been pieced together by scholars with readings selected from various ancient manuscripts in an attempt to assemble a text that that they think is closest to the original manuscripts. This sounds like a noble and righteous attempt at first until one realizes that the result is a man made text that is different from all existing ancient Greek manuscripts.

The UBS 3rd and Nestle Aland texts are based on only a few manuscripts that don't agree with each other or with the majority. You will see how few in the chapter: Manuscript evidence given by the UBS Greek text. You will also be able to see that these manuscripts do not agree with each other. The few number of Greek manuscripts that the changes in the NIV is based on is shocking when one realizes that there are over 5000 New Testament manuscripts and the weight of the rest has largely been ignored even though there are other manuscripts that are of the same age and the majority are in agreement.

A significant issue is that the Greek manuscripts that we are being told are the "best" do not agree with each other. They do not read the same. The differences are significant differences in reading. These are not minor differences, such as differences in spelling, word order, or punctuation. Among the two main manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) upon which the NU text is based, there are many, many, many places where one of them will omit a significant word or phrase and the other will have the word or phrase. I have not found any scholar that refutes the fact that among the Alexandrian manuscripts upon which the modern NU Greek text (Nestle Aland/ United Bible Society text) is based, that there are not two manuscripts that read the same. In fact they testify to the fact that their "best" manuscripts do not agree because they have had to compile an eclectic Greek test. They have selected from the variant readings what they think might be the best reading. The result is that not only do their ancient manuscripts not agree with each other, but the resulting Greek text from which the NIV is translated does not agree with any ancient Greek manuscript. It does not read the same as any ancient Greek manuscript. (Note: this is in sharp contrast to the agreement in reading of the large group of manuscripts that the Textus Receptus is based on.)

The term "best manuscripts" needs to be understood from the view point of highly educated scholars who are looking at the quality of the manuscript parchment, how little is missing, and the age of the manuscript. The term "best" is not how many Christians interpret it in thinking about the Word of God, that best means the text is very accurate and reliable.

 

[charles_creech78]

The NIV's "best manuscripts"

From my research in examining the NU Greek text, most of what has been removed from the NIV, is based on Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus. These are the oldest manuscripts that are listed in the footnotes of the United Bible Society's 3rd. edition Greek text for the majority of the passages where something has been removed.

The following is what I have found about these two texts:

 

[charles_creech78]

Codex Sinaiticus

This codex is an Alexandrian (Egyptian) manuscript dating from the fourth century (350 AD; around 275 years after most of the New Testament books were originally written). The scribe has many careless and transcriptional errors. Letters, words, and whole sentences are written twice or begun the second time and immediately struck out. There are 115 times in the N.T. where a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause before it. It has had many alterations to correct the careless mistakes. Dean Burgon, who has studied it, says that eleven different persons have made revisions and corrections on the manuscript itself down through the ages.3 It was discovered in a monastery trash can.4

Codex Vaticanus

This codex is also an Alexandrian (Egyptian) manuscript dating from the fourth century (350 AD; around 275 years after the most of the New Testament books were originally written). It has been held by the Vatican since the mid 1400's but was not released to Protestant scholars until the late 1800's. The Vatican will not let scholars study the original. Only a few have been allowed to see it, and then only for short periods. Scholars have only had photocopies to work from.5

There are literally thousands of omissions, additions, and other changes in each of these manuscripts. What is significant is that where they differ from the way the majority of the Greek manuscripts read, the omissions, additions, and other changes are not the same in both manuscripts. These two manuscript do not read the same, they are not identical.

 

[charles_creech78]

There are major gaps in the logic supporting the NIV's Greek text

Those who write in support of the NIV sound convincing. However, I encourage you to evaluate carefully what they are saying. I have discovered that there are major gaps in the logic for the modern eclectic Greek text. Often there are opinions that are stated as facts without ancient manuscript proof given to back up what they are confidently saying. An example of this is in explaining why a particular phrase is not in the NU Greek text, they state that a particular phrase is clearly an example of a later scribe adding a phrase to make it read like another passage. They do not give the manuscripts that contain the phrase and the ones that do not, and the dates of the manuscripts so that you can judge for yourself that it is clearly inserted by a later scribe. When I would look up the evidence on the phrase, I would find that it was not as they made it appear. Often I found evidence (For example, the writings of the early church fathers) that was at least the same age and sometimes older than the manuscript that did not have the phrase, that included the phrase.

They also write from the premise that the early Alexandrian/Egyptian manuscripts, especially Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, read closest to the originals. I raise this question: "Why would the Alexandrian/Egyptian manuscripts read closest to the originals when most of the original copies of the New Testament books were sent to Asia which was on the other side of the Mediterranean Sea?" None of the original books of the New Testament were sent to Egypt.

In addition, those who write in support of the NIV do not address several foundational issues:

 

[charles_creech78]

None of Their Ancient Manuscripts Agree with Each Other!!!

Each of the ancient Alexandrian manuscripts, upon which the modern eclectic Greek text is based, have a significant amount of differences in reading. None of them totally read the same as any of the others. While the majority of over 5000 manuscripts read essentially the same. John Burgon, who spent the last 30 years of his life researching Greek texts states: (Note, the early manuscripts are identified by a letter or number such as B, or 048.) "There are only 111 out of the 320 pages of an ordinary copy of the Greek Testament in which these five old manuscripts have corresponding pages. The serious deflections of A from the Textus Receptus amount in all to only 842; in C they amount to 1,798; in B (Vaticanus) to 2,370; in N (Sinaiticus) to 3,392; in D to 4,697. The readings peculiar to A within the same limits are 133; those peculiar to C are 170. But the peculiar readings of B amount to 197; while N exhibits 443 and D no fewer than 1,829 peculiar to themselves readings. These figures come from merely referring the five manuscripts to one and the same common standard. The differences between themselves would be similar. This by no means will inspire confidence in codices BNCD- codices, remember, which come to us without a character, without a history, in fact without antecedents of any kind

 

[charles_creech78]

They do not give factual Manuscript Proof to support Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

No factual manuscript evidence is given to show why Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are considered such great manuscripts by scholars today. No explanation is given why Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus should carry so much weight when they disagree so much with each other. It is implied that it is because they are old but there are other manuscripts that are older than they are as well as some that are of the same age. They expect us to accept their value judgment without giving us proof. From the passages that I have researched, many of the omissions are based primarily on these two manuscripts with some other later manuscripts supporting them. John Burgon states about these two manuscripts: "And let it be remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications are by no means the same in both. In fact it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two differ from one another, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree!!"8 Why should manuscripts like these be used to change the way Scripture should read especially to remove words, phrases, verses or entire passages

 

[charles_creech78]

The UBS 3rd Edition is a 20th Century "Manuscript"

It is implied that the NIV is translated directly from the oldest manuscripts but this is not the case. The NU Greek text that the NIV is translated from is actually a 20th century "manuscript" (text). There is not a single ancient Greek manuscript that reads the same as it does! I repeat, there is not a single ancient Greek manuscript that is identical to the NU Greek text! The NU text is not a fixed Greek text. It is continually changing. The Nestle Aland text has 27 editions. The United Bible Societies text has four editions. There is already a new addition of the modern NU Greek text that has come out since the NIV was first translated. The NU text is like sand and is not a firm rock. (see Matt. 7:24-27) Not near all of the thousands of omissions and changes in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts have been adopted in the NU text. There is much more that can be changed even without any new manuscript discoveries.

You will be able to verify for yourself later in this book in the chapter "Manuscript evidence given by the UBS Greek text" that the manuscripts that the NIV is based on do not read the same. You will also be able to see for yourself that there is not even one manuscript that is listed for every verse that was changed.

In the books that I have found, the writers who defend the NIV often state things as fact without giving factual ancient manuscript evidence to prove why what they are saying is true. If you have read any of these books, you need to be very discerning about what you have read because Satan wants to deceive us. If you look up the ancient manuscript evidence and the writings of the early church fathers who quote the phrases or verses that are missing, you will soon see that what the NIV supporters are stating is not the same as they make it sound. They are long on rhetoric and they speak confidently that what they are saying is fact. However, upon closer observation one realizes that they are stating opinions as fact. They do not give factual ancient manuscript evidence of the manuscripts that contain a variant and those that do not, to prove what they so confidently affirm. They give just enough information to get one to believe what they want us to believe.

 

[charles_creech78]

What does eclectic mean?

When the NU Greek text is described as being eclectic, what does that mean? Because the Greek manuscripts which were used to compile the NU Greek text do not read the same, the compilers of the NU text needed to choose which readings they would put in their version of the Greek text. They were not able to follow any one manuscript completely because each of the manuscripts had readings at various places that they did not believe were correct. They therefore chose from the various manuscripts the reading that they thought was best and what they thought was most likely the original reading. The process that they used is called the eclectic method and the resulting text is called an eclectic text. The term "eclectic" is defined by Webster's Dictionary as: "Selecting; choosing; not original nor following any one model or leader, but choosing at will from the doctrines, works, etc., of others." (emphasis added) The key to understanding the eclectic method is understanding that it does not follow any one manuscript, nor does it totally follow any set of rules, but that it is choosing at will from the various conflicting manuscripts — some from one manuscript and some from others. The following is a simplified fictional example of how the eclectic process works:

The traditional reading: "He ate an apple that was sour and it set his teeth on edge." (the majority of manuscripts)

Manuscript #1 (a copy dated 350 years after the original): "John Doe ate a green apple."

Manuscript #2 (a copy dated 350 years after the original): "John Smith ate a green apple."

Manuscript #3 (a copy dated 400 years after the original): "John Smith ate an apple."

Man made eclectic text: "John Smith ate a green apple."

Reason given in the man made eclectic text for selecting this reading:

(Note: This is wording that is taken from the companion book for the USB 3rd edition Greek text — A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce Metzger — and applied to this example. The underlined phrases which indicate speculation and the subjective opinion of the Committee are found over and over and over in that book. It is there that the Committee explains why they chose or omitted some of the different readings.):

"In the opinion of the Committee, the name Smith is probably more accurate than Doe since manuscript #1 is the only place the name John Doe is found and Smith is a more likely name. The expanded reading 'and it set his teeth on edge' was most likely added by a later scribe to explain what a green apple does since the oldest and best manuscripts do not have this reading." (emphasis added)

The eclectic method is not an exact science. It is very subjective.

 

[charles_creech78]

Is the Textus Receptus based on one ancient Greek manuscript ?

No, the Textus Receptus is not based on one ancient Greek manuscript. Of all the ancient Greek manuscripts, there is not one ancient manuscript that contains all of the books of the New Testament. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus contain the most number of books, but they do not have all of the books of the N.T. Some manuscripts contain only the Gospels, some only the epistles or some of the epistles, some only the book of Acts. Many are fragments in which parts are missing because of their age. Therefore it is an impossibility for a Greek text, the TR or the NU to be based on only one manuscript. An ancient manuscript can read exactly the same as the TR for the passage it covers, but that does not mean that the TR is translated only from that one manuscript.

 

[charles_creech78]

Why there is a need for a compiled Greek text to translate the New Testament from

There is a need for a compiled Greek text of the complete New Testament, because none of the ancient Greek manuscripts contain the entire New Testament. That is why the Textus Receptus and the NU Greek texts were compiled, to give Bible translators a complete Greek text to translate the New Testament into modern languages