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

[charles_creech78]

Re 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. Levgei oJ marturw'n tau'ta, Naiv, e~rcomai tacuv. #Amhvn, e~rcou, kuvrie #Ihsou'

 

[EdSutton]

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.

Actually the Bible I currently use is an NKJV, and I have used it for some ten years. How much longer I will probably use it will depend on how well it stands up to wear.

Befiore I acquired the NKJV, I used an MLB for a few months, after my favorite Bible of my life disappeared. (I still have it.)

Before the short time with the MLB, I had a wonderful KJV that I used for over thirty years, before someone took it from my cab, one night, I believe. In fact, when it began to come apart, I thought so much of it ,that I paid more to have it rebound than I would have paid for many very good new Bibles. So I lost double, when that Bible disappeared. I only hope that someone will find Christ, as a result of my loss. I would pay whatever anyone wanted, within reason, no questions asked, just to have it back to use again, for it contained thirty years of my notes than can never be replaced.

Before that, I used another KJV until it came apart. (I still have it.)

Before that, I used an ASV. (I still have it.)

Before that, I used an NASV New Testamant, for a year or so, along with a KJV, mentioned next. (I still have the NASV NT.)

Before that, I used another KJV which was the first Bible I used on a regular basis. It also came apart, as it was not a particularly good Bible in the binding. (And I still have this one, as well.)

When they come apart, they are impractical to use on a regular basis.

But I respect each and every one of them, exactly the same, for they were and are the "Holy Bible". That is my point.

To my knowledge, not one person who translated on any of the versions did ever claim to do it for themselves, or for their own glory, but for the glory of God. And that includes the mostly unknown translators of each and every Bible I have mentioned, from the KJV to the NKJV. Not everyone is/was as well known as William Tyndale, John Rainolds, Gerrit Verkuyl, or Arthur Farstad, in the world of translations. In fact, the translators of the NASV were so concerned with NOT bringing attention to themselves, that they remained completely anonymous, at their own choosing, for many years. Some of them went to glory with the work they did, unknown by the world, during their lifetime.

The statement you made that "I am going to see if I can find the oldest one" Bible version, simply does not hold water, when you then use a KJV. The Geneva Bible is older. Ed Edwards sometimes quotes from it. There are several others such as Coverdale's, Matthew's, and the Bishop's Bible. All are older than the KJV. (Interestingly enough, I seldom see these versions cited by "The Older is Better" crowd. I wonder why?? Could this be merely a "smoke-screen?) Tyndale's Bible is 75 years older, and is available, at least online, according to recent posts on the BB. Wycliffe's version is 225 years older, and I definitely know it is available on-line to anyone, free of charge, by Bible Gateway. In fact, I have quoted from it several times in posts, in my now almost two years on the BB.

Again, as I said in my previous post, I do not care what version anyone uses. Obviously, I have used many, (and most of them were the KJV) so that should show that adequately. But I have never labored under the misconception that is is/was a perfect translation, any more than any other translation is/was a perfect translation. All of those I have used, in my 59 years, were very good, if not exceptionally good translations, IMO.

[Yes, I have read the KJV introduction, more than once. (I have read the intro to about every version I have used, I believe, but could not say this for sure, as to the ASV.) I have even posted from the intro to the KJV. This was usually in response to someone's claim regarding the KJV that the translators did NOT make, or a statement they DID make, that contradicted a post.] That is not being consistent with the facts. And I like to see someone be consistent, when he or she makes a statement.

I'm sure you would like to be considered a consistent person. Therefore, I shall look forward to your posts from Tyndale's and Wycliffe's. Will I have to wait for a long while? Just wonderin'!

FTR, I have never said anyone was "unbiblical", for a version they used.

Ed

 

[charles_creech78]

Actually the Bible I currently use is an NKJV, and I have used it for some ten years. How much longer I will probably use it will depend on how well it stands up to wear.

Befiore I acquired the NKJV, I used an MLB for a few months, after my favorite Bible of my life disappeared. (I still have it.)

Before the short time with the MLB, I had a wonderful KJV that I used for over thirty years, before someone took it from my cab, one night, I believe. In fact, when it began to come apart, I thought so much of it ,that I paid more to have it rebound than I would have paid for many very good new Bibles. So I lost double, when that Bible disappeared. I only hope that someone will find Christ, as a result of my loss. I would pay whatever anyone wanted, within reason, no questions asked, just to have it back to use again, for it contained thirty years of my notes than can never be replaced.

Before that, I used another KJV until it came apart. (I still have it.)

Before that, I used an ASV. (I still have it.)

Before that, I used an NASV New Testamant, for a year or so, along with a KJV, mentioned next. (I still have the NASV NT.)

Before that, I used another KJV which was the first Bible I used on a regular basis. It also came apart, as it was not a particularly good Bible in the binding. (And I still have this one, as well.)

When they come apart, they are impractical to use on a regular basis.

But I respect each and every one of them, exactly the same, for they were and are the "Holy Bible". That is my point.

To my knowledge, not one person who translated on any of the versions did ever claim to do it for themselves, or for their own glory, but for the glory of God. And that includes the mostly unknown translators of each and every Bible I have mentioned, from the KJV to the NKJV. Not everyone is/was as well known as William Tyndale, John Rainolds, Gerrit Verkuyl, or Arthur Farstad, in the world of translations. In fact, the translators of the NASV were so concerned with NOT bringing attention to themselves, that they remained completely anonymous, at their own choosing, for many years. Some of them went to glory with the work they did, unknown by the world, during their lifetime.

The statement you made that "I am going to see if I can find the oldest one" Bible version, simply does not hold water, when you then use a KJV. The Geneva Bible is older. Ed Edwards sometimes quotes from it. There are several others such as Coverdale's, Matthew's, and the Bishop's Bible. All are older than the KJV. (Interestingly enough, I seldom see these versions cited by "The Older is Better" crowd. I wonder why?? Could this be merely a "smoke-screen?) Tyndale's Bible is 75 years older, and is available, at least online, according to recent posts on the BB. Wycliffe's version is 225 years older, and I definitely know it is available on-line to anyone, free of charge, by Bible Gateway. In fact, I have quoted from it several times in posts, in my now almost two years on the BB.

Again, as I said in my previous post, I do not care what version anyone uses. Obviously, I have used many, (and most of them were the KJV) so that should show that adequately. But I have never labored under the misconception that is is/was a perfect translation, any more than any other translation is/was a perfect translation. All of those I have used, in my 59 years, were very good, if not exceptionally good translations, IMO.

[Yes, I have read the KJV introduction, more than once. (I have read the intro to about every version I have used, I believe, but could not say this for sure, as to the ASV.) I have even posted from the intro to the KJV. This was usually in response to someone's claim regarding the KJV that the translators did NOT make, or a statement they DID make, that contradicted a post.] That is not being consistent with the facts. And I like to see someone be consistent, when he or she makes a statement.

I'm sure you would like to be considered a consistent person. Therefore, I shall look forward to your posts from Tyndale's and Wycliffe's. Will I have to wait for a long while? Just wonderin'!

FTR, I have never said anyone was "unbiblical", for a version they used.

Ed

Are you talking about reading them. Yes I will read them. I am just starting to read into the older bibles. Shortly and Quickly are so close to being the same thing. Ok Ed I understand of what you are saying. But what did the Lord mean in Rev. Of what he said about add and take away. Is it right to add and take away. To all the translation out there how does someone know that the bible they have is the right translation. Help me if you can to understand this. It said it was written of Holy Men of OLD. Does that mean the bible itself or the scrolls. Because if it is the bible how can a new one be right if it was Holy Men of Old who had written them by the Holy Ghost. Do you see what I am saying. My king James bible says this in rev. Re 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. And the TNIV 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If any one of you adds anything to them, God will add to you the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if any one of you takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from you your share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll. Which One is right and which one is wrong. I am not looking at a scroll when I read the bible. I am looking at a book. See that is what I am talking about. Explain this to me Ed. Do I have to Translate it for my self to get the truth. And what happen to the word OF( IF ANY MAN.)

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Are you talking about reading them. Yes I will read them. I am just starting to read into the older bibles. Shortly and Quickly are so close to being the same thing. Ok Ed I understand of what you are saying. But what did the Lord mean in Rev. Of what he said about add and take away. Is it right to add and take away. To all the translation out there how does someone know that the bible they have is the right translation. Help me if you can to understand this. It said it was written of Holy Men of OLD. Does that mean the bible itself or the scrolls. Because if it is the bible how can a new one be right if it was Holy Men of Old who had written them by the Holy Ghost. Do you see what I am saying. My king James bible says this in rev. Re 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. And the TNIV 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If any one of you adds anything to them, God will add to you the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if any one of you takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from you your share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll. Which One is right and which one is wrong. I am not looking at a scroll when I read the bible. I am looking at a book. See that is what I am talking about. Explain this to me Ed. Do I have to Translate it for my self to get the truth. And what happen to the word OF( IF ANY MAN.)

Hi Charles,

It is the Revelation passage that seems to most bother you. Let me suggest something if I might, compare 1 John 5v12 in the 1611 edition of the KJV and any other KJV edition and let me know your thoughts please.

Choose your version and stick to it, thats what this thread is all about, but you are wise to fully investigate.

 

[dan e.]

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.

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.

 

[David Michael Harris]

No, just stubborn.

 

[EdSutton]

Re 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. Levgei oJ marturw'n tau'ta, Naiv, e~rcomai tacuv. #Amhvn, e~rcou, kuvrie #Ihsou'

May I offer you a slightly bit of better 'lettering' and/or readings (by making your 'Greek' transliteration a bit easier to 'read'), as well as a handful of other renderings for Rev. 22:20.

20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. (KJV - 1611 - date unknown for the Bible Gateway edition used)
20 He that testifies these things says, Yea, I come quickly. Amen; come, Lord Jesus. (Darby - 1890 - date and edition unknown - BG)
20 he saith -- who is testifying these things -- `Yes, I come quickly!' Amen! Yes, be coming, Lord Jesus! (YLT - 1897- edition unknown - BG)
20 He who testifieth these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus. (ASV - 1901 - edition unknown - BG)
20 He who (A)testifies to these things says, "Yes, (B)I am coming quickly " Amen (C)Come, Lord Jesus. (NASB - ©1963, ©1995)
20 He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming quickly.”
Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus! (NKJV - ©1982)
20 He who testifies about these things (A) says, "Yes, I am coming quickly."
Amen! Come, Lord Jesus! (B) (HCSB - ©1999, ©2003)

20 He saith, that beareth witnessing of these things, Yea, Amen. [Lo!] I come soon. Amen. Come thou, Lord Jesus. (WYC - 1380, ©2001)
20 He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon."
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (TNIV ©2001, 2005)
20 He who is the faithful witness to all these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon!”
Amen! Come, Lord Jesus! (NLT © 1996, 2004)
20 λεγει ο μαρτυρων ταυτα ναι ερχομαι ταχυ αμην ερχου κυριε ιησου (WHNU - 1881)
20 λεγει ο μαρτυρων ταυτα ναι ερχομαι ταχυ αμην ναι ερχου κυριε ιησου (TR1550 )
20 λεγει ο μαρτυρων ταυτα ναι ερχομαι ταχυ αμην ναι ερχου κυριε ιησου (TR1894)
20 legei ho marturOn tauta nai erchomai tachu AmEn nai erchou kurie iEsou (transliterated by EdSutton, © Baptist Board & EdSutton :laugh: BTW, the very fact that I AM posting this DOES make it copyrighted, both by me and the BB)
20 λεγει ο μαρτυρων ταυτα ναι ερχομαι ταχυ αμην ναι ερχου κυριε ιησου (The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, Second Edition, Hodges/Farstad et al., ©1985)
20 λεγει ο μαρτυρων ταυτα ναι ερχομαι ταχυ αμην ερχου κυριε ιησου (The Greek New Testamant Aland/Black/Metzger, et al., UBS-2, ©1968)
“Can you speak Greek?” (Acts 21:37b2 - NKJV)
Canst thou speak Greek? (Acts 21:37b2 - KJV)

Do you actually see any real difference in what is being taught in this verse in the English language over the last 625 years?? If so, may I ask, "What would it be?"

And may I here offer that there is no real question as to what the Greek language is saying, either. The only real question is that of whether or not the second "ναι" or "nai" has adequate textual support.

Here is what Hodges/Farstad offer on that, who BTW studied and checked out, more texts than did Westcott & Hort,
Erasmus, and Stephanus combined to arrive at their conclusions. [I will paraphrase this, as I cannot copy on to the computer, from my hard copy, exactly. Just as I cannot copy the punctuation that they (H/F) and UBS-2 give, as well.] Include the second "nai"- M - a, b-pt, c, d, TR ; not include M b-pt, e, Aleph, A, Cr . FTR, Hodges and Farstad are and were advocates for the Majority Text, the text that underlies most of the TR, in case one does not know that. And Erasmus, when compiling the Greek text that later was known as the TR, did not have a text in hand that had a very good copy of Revelation, having to supply some of it, including the last verses from the commentary of Andrew of Caesarea, in the sixth Century, I believe, which apart from the Vulgate, was the best he was able to do, at that time. So there is a legitimate question as to whether the word translated as "Even so" in the KJV, actually properly belongs in the Greek text.

Sorry, Gotta' run and do some things, so I can't get any deeper into this, right now. Any other typos will just have to be there.

Ed (2007©) :thumbs:

 

[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.

So your saying it is naive and arrogant to find the truth about the word of God and why it is being translated so much. Why can't anyone of you give me a answer for Rev. About adding and taking away from the word of God. There is away that seems right to a man and the way there is is unto death. It said make every man alier and God the truth. I am seeking out the truth brother and if you don't like that then so be it. You have every right not to post to me. But again you call me things that are not so and again I will forgive you for it. If you had read my post I changed what I first said about old is better it is FOR ME. And again how did I slam them. Because I will not read a new one is that the reason. How does it upset you because you hear about a man that want to get to the truth about things. Do you think I would want to read a translation that might not be translated right or find out to see if the bible I am reading know is translated right. If you call this to be naive and arrogant then so be it.

 

[charles_creech78]

Hi Charles,

It is the Revelation passage that seems to most bother you. Let me suggest something if I might, compare 1 John 5v12 in the 1611 edition of the KJV and any other KJV edition and let me know your thoughts please.

Choose your version and stick to it, thats what this thread is all about, but you are wise to fully investigate.

You are comparing the 1611 to this.

In case you think it's insignificant words like "thee" and "thou"? The NIV removes major portions of at least 147 verses!

Here's a small (very small) sampling of words removed in the NIV!

Matt. 6:13, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."
Matt. 15:8, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth"
Matt. 19:9, "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Matt. 20:7, "and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive."
Matt. 20:16, "for many be called, but few chosen."
Matt. 20:22, "and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with"
Matt. 25:13, "wherein the Son of Man cometh."
Matt. 27:35, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet They parted my garments among them and upon my vesture did they cast lots"
Mark 6:11, "Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
Mark 10:21, "take up the cross."
Luke 1:28, "blessed art thou among women"
Luke 4:4, "but by every word of God"
Luke 4:8, "get thee behind me Satan"
Luke 4:18, "he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted"
Luke 11:2-4, "Our ... which art in ... Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth... but deliver us from evil"
John 1:27, "is preferred before me"
John 3:13, "which is in heaven"
John 3:15, "should not perish"
John 11:41, "from the place where the dead was laid"
John 16:16, "because I go to the Father"
Acts 10:6, "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"
Acts 15:18, "Known unto God are all his works"
Acts 20:24, "But none of these things move me"
Acts 23:9, "let us not fight against God"
Rom. 8:1, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"
Rom. 13:9, "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
I Cor. 6:20, "and in your spirit which are God's"
I Cor. 11:24; "Take eat... broken"
II Cor. 10:4, "but mighty through God"
Gal. 3:1, "that you should not obey the truth"
Eph. 5:30, "of his flesh, and of his bones"
Phil. 3:16, "let us mind the same thing"
I Tim. 6:5, "from such wthdraw thyself"
Heb. 7:21, "after the order of Melchisedec"
I Pet. 1:22, "through the Spirit"
I Pet. 4:14, "on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified"
I John 4:3, "Christ is come in the flesh"
I John 5:13, "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God"
Rev. 1:11, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last"
Rev. 5:14, "him that liveth for ever and ever"
Rev. 14:5, "before the throne of God"
Rev. 21:24, "of them which are saved"

Jesus Christ says, in Luke 4:4, ". . . It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God." But not according to the NIV! In fact, the NIV even "TAKETH AWAY" the last half of Luke 4:4 - "BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD"! And Jesus Christ was quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 to Satan! Does the NIV seriously think the Lord Jesus Christ does NOT know Duet. 8:3??? And by the way if you do not know what the son is then you have a very bad problem. But it still is not right for leaving that out but it is non of are right to fix it or to change it. It is when you do stuff like this like the NIV that makes it very bad. I am still studing this stuff and there will be more to come. Sister I agree with you on that. No hard filling and I am sorry if I am naive and arrogant.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

You are comparing the 1611 to this.

.

The NIV removed nothing, but that is another issue.

Did you get a chance to compare the 1611 KJV with a later edition of the KJV in 1 John 5v12?

 

[Amy.G]

Does the NIV PERversion seriously think the Lord Jesus Christ does NOT know Duet. 8:3???

There's that word!

Snip! Snip!

 

[EdSutton]

I consider THIS unbiblical!

[snipped]
Jesus Christ says, in Luke 4:4, ". . . It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God." But not according to the NIV! In fact, the NIV even "TAKETH AWAY" the last half of Luke 4:4 - "BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD"! And Jesus Christ was quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 to Satan! Does the NIV PERversion seriously think the Lord Jesus Christ does NOT know Duet. 8:3??? And by the way if you do not know what the son is then you have a very bad problem. But it still is not right for leaving that out but it is non of are right to fix it or to change it. It is when you do stuff like this like the NIV that makes it very bad. I am still studing this stuff and there will be more to come. [snipped]

While you are "studing this stuff", might I offer one suggestion. How about "studing" this rule posted in the Bible versions forum, on the very first page, in a "sticky." I'll embolden and underline to draw attention to what I am referring to, both in our posts, and in the rules I am citing.

9. Certain terms are off limits in this forum.
For example:
</font>

• The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc.</font>
• The MV crowd will not refer to the KJVOs as "cults," "heretics," "sacrilegious," etc...nor refer to the KJV in derisive terms such as "King Jimmy's Bible," "Pickled Preserved Version," etc.</font>

And to further help out, I'll even give the thread you can link to.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2393

You might also wanna' take note of the last two sentences on this page, above.
I hope you choose to hang around.

While you are at it, you might read, again, what both you and I agreed to, when both you and I signed up on this board. Here is that link, as well, to refresh both our memories.

http://www.baptistboard.com/postingrules.html

You may recall that in a recent post, I mentioned that I respected the title on all of my Bibles that read "Holy Bible". I did not specifically mention the NIV, but it happens to be my bride's preference in versions, although I prefer a more formal and literal translation. Yet my bride's NIV also has that same cover title of "Holy Bible" on it. What I said about the other versions applies just as much to the NIV as the NKJV, ASV, MLB, NASV, or KJV.

Did you happen to notice a slight difference between how I use the word "versions" and your own use of a different word??

Think about it.

Ed

 

[charles_creech78]

While you are "studing this stuff", might I offer one suggestion. How about "studing" this rule posted in this forum, on the very first page, in a "sticky." I'll embolden and underline to draw attention to what I am referring to, boht in our post, and in the rules I am citing.And to further help out, I'll even give the thread you can link to.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2393

You might also wanna' take note of the last two sentences on this page, above.
I hope you choose to hang around.

While you are at it, you might read, again, what both you and I agreed to, when both you and I signed up on this board. Here is that link, as well, to refresh both our memories.

http://www.baptistboard.com/postingrules.html

You may recall that in a recent post, I mentioned that I respected the title on all of my Bibles that read "Holy Bible". I did not specifically mention the NIV, but it happens to be my bride's preference in versions, although I prefer a more formal and literal translation. Yet my bride's NIV also has that same cover title of "Holy Bible" on it. What I said about the other versions applies just as much to the NIV as the NKJV, ASV, MLB, NASV, or KJV. Think about it.

Ed

I am sorry to you and everyone else on the BB for using that word perversion. I was upset about some things and I hope you and the board will forgive me for that word. I did not know that we could not us that word. But Dan need to stop calling me Naive and arrogant because I believe of what I believe. He is calling me unlearned of the other bibles and I am not. I thank I have proved my point on hear about what I fill and only want to get to the truth. I have gone to scripture on this and no one hear has given me a clear answer. And you know what scripture I am talking about. I am just tring to understand why the WORD of GOD is being TRANSLATED SO MANY TIME from the translaton and to which one is the truth. There are alot of bible that are the same. But not all of them.

 

[charles_creech78]

The NIV removed nothing, but that is another issue.

Did you get a chance to compare the 1611 KJV with a later edition of the KJV in 1 John 5v12?

Yes I did God is taken out of it. I do not agree with that just like I don't agree with the NIV. IF it be the 1611 edition or the NIV it is not right to add or take away.... I am going to get more bibles and study into it all ok. I am going to look for the truth about all this.

 

[charles_creech78]

While you are "studing this stuff", might I offer one suggestion. How about "studing" this rule posted in the Bible versions forum, on the very first page, in a "sticky." I'll embolden and underline to draw attention to what I am referring to, both in our posts, and in the rules I am citing.And to further help out, I'll even give the thread you can link to.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2393

You might also wanna' take note of the last two sentences on this page, above.
I hope you choose to hang around.

While you are at it, you might read, again, what both you and I agreed to, when both you and I signed up on this board. Here is that link, as well, to refresh both our memories.

http://www.baptistboard.com/postingrules.html

You may recall that in a recent post, I mentioned that I respected the title on all of my Bibles that read "Holy Bible". I did not specifically mention the NIV, but it happens to be my bride's preference in versions, although I prefer a more formal and literal translation. Yet my bride's NIV also has that same cover title of "Holy Bible" on it. What I said about the other versions applies just as much to the NIV as the NKJV, ASV, MLB, NASV, or KJV.

Did you happen to notice a slight difference between how I use the word "versions" and your own use of a different word??

Think about it.

Ed

I have taken that word out Ed and I am truely sorry to all of you.

 

[EdSutton]

Yes I did God is taken out of it. I do not agree with that just like I don't agree with the NIV. IF it be the 1611 edition or the NIV it is not right to add or take away.... I am going to get more bibles and study into it all ok. I am going to look for the truth about all this.

Let's see if I get this straight. Did the KJV-1611 "take away" the words "of God" from the verse or did the KJV-1769 "add to" the same verse?? And how do you know which it is?? Both are "KJV".

You obviously are certain that the words were "taken out". I find that to be a strange position to take. I am entirely just as concerned about words being added as words being taken away form. Apparently, you hold a slightly different point of view.

Mexdeaf and Keith M called your hand on doing this already, in another thread.

In the same thread, TC and David Lamb answered you on the first Bible that was "authorized";

Ed Edwards noted that the reading of "of God" was removed from the Geneva Bible to the KJV-1611;

I'll here note that the words "of God" would have been removed from the Wycliffe, at this point to the KJV-1611, as well, and would simultaneously note that the Wycliffe apparently "added to" this with a second instance of the words "of God", in the same verse. I may have previously noted this in the other thread, but do not recall, and do not have the time to check, as I have to leave very shortly;

and TCGreek and I answered you as to the textual backing for the verse.

This is not intended to be a put down, but it is intended to note that apparently your mind is already made up, for you have apparently ignored all these posters, and are here "replowing in the same furrow", as us 'farmer types' would say.

C4K asked then, and now, a legitimate question, to those who hold any "ONLY-est" position. No one advocating that position has attempted to answer it, satisfactorily. Wanna' become the first to do so?? It is kinda' lonely at the top, you understand.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=42271

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I am sorry to you and everyone else on the BB for using that word perversion. I was upset about some things and I hope you and the board will forgive me for that word. I did not know that we could not us that word. But Dan need to stop calling me Naive and arrogant because I believe of what I believe. He is calling me unlearned of the other bibles and I am not. I thank I have proved my point on hear about what I fill and only want to get to the truth. I have gone to scripture on this and no one hear has given me a clear answer. And you know what scripture I am talking about. I am just tring to understand why the WORD of GOD is being TRANSLATED SO MANY TIME from the translaton and to which one is the truth. There are alot of bible that are the same. But not all of them.

You do not nor did not owe me an apology, but you may owe the Board brass one, or someone else one, in this. Nevertheless, I'll accept your apology in the manner in which it was intended, even though it was not needed. For any others, I'll not be the judge of that. And I cannot speak for any of them.

I do not know how many other Bibles you, or any other person, for that matter, is or are 'learned' or 'unlearned' in. I admit to being very unlearned in all versions, including some I have used for well over 40 years. And I am a BIble college graduate with education beyond that degree, toward an advanced degree. Several here are far more learned than I, including some with multiple doctorates, I believe, and I have yet to hear anyone claim to be "learned" in all versions, at least up until now, with any real credibility. I do not believe that is what you are saying, so please don't take that in any wrong manner.

Ed

 

[charles_creech78]

Let's see if I get this straight. Did the KJV-1611 "take away" the words "of God" from the verse or did the KJV-1769 "add to" the same verse?? And how do you know which it is?? Both are "KJV".

You obviously are certain that the words were "taken out". I find that to be a strange position to take. I am entirely just as concerned about words being added as words being taken away form. Apparently, you hold a slightly different point of view.

Mexdeaf and Keith M called your hand on doing this already, in another thread.

In the same thread, TC and David Lamb answered you on the first Bible that was "authorized";

Ed Edwards noted that the reading of "of God" was removed from the Geneva Bible to the KJV-1611;

I'll here note that the words "of God" would have been removed from the Wycliffe, at this point to the KJV-1611, as well, and would simultaneously note that the Wycliffe apparently "added to" this with a second instance of the words "of God", in the same verse. I may have previously noted this in the other thread, but do not recall, and do not have the time to check, as I have to leave very shortly;

and TCGreek and I answered you as to the textual backing for the verse.

This is not intended to be a put down, but it is intended to note that apparently your mind is already made up, for you have apparently ignored all these posters, and are here "replowing in the same furrow", as us 'farmer types' would say.

C4K asked then, and now, a legitimate question, to those who hold any "ONLY-est" position. No one advocating that position has attempted to answer it, satisfactorily. Wanna' become the first to do so?? It is kinda' lonely at the top, you understand.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=42271

Ed

I know what post you are talking about and I said the same thing about it. Go back and look if you can. What I am tring to say is it is not right to add or take anything from the word of God. But some of you think that it is and I will have no part with that.
I will say it again and will stand on what I believe that the athoraty of God that the word of God should not be added on to or take away from and that do not have to with draw my name from this board . I will leave myself. Behold as God is my wittness I have defended on adding and taking away from the words of God and that I will trust that he will lead me to the truth of this. Good bye and I love each and everyone of you. Other wise I fill not welcomed hear.

 

[Joe]

Charles,

I haven't read all of these posts really, just this one of yours. Know I admire you. You are humble, meek and have a desire to learn God's word as best you can. You clearly love the Lord which shines through in your posts. I hope to be able to look forward to reading your posts in the future.

 

[Rippon]

I don't know why so many in the KJVO movement can maintian their position with any credibility . Many of them need remedial reading classes in standard English . How they can hope to understand the archaic language of the KJV ( in its many forms ) is beyond me .

I have met South Korean KJVO folks who could barely put together a sentence in contemporary English , but strove to indoctrinate anyone in their path to abandon all other Bible versions save the KJV .

For these people ( poor native English speakers and foreigners learning English as a second language ) I would suggest they get a NIrV Bible . It would help them immensely . The language is simple and clear .