SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
I suggest that you take a look at Acts 2.47 in the KJV and then in the Greek and then tell me that their translation is not biased and completely wrong
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
John 3:16-18
- Thread starter SavedByGrace
- Start date
- Status
I suggest that you take a look at Acts 2.47 in the KJV and then in the Greek and then tell me that their translation is not biased and completely wrong
So 1769 Kjv, which improved the perfect 1611 Kjv?My Bible is a late 18th century edition of an original translation that was begun in roughly 1604 and finished in 1611 in England.
Grammatically ( using the language of its day ), I can find very little, if anything wrong with it when I compare it to the Greek of the New Testament or with the Hebrew of the Old Testament.
Also, the Greek that I trust is the "Received Text" or "Textus Receptus":
John 3 Interlinear Bible
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh3.pdf
If you wish to review the usage of the words being translated, then I invite you to do so.
Lastly,
I don't use Young's Literal ( which was translated using a collated Greek text of some 100 manuscripts and other bit and pieces, sometimes referred to as the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, I believe ), although I find it to be helpful on occasion.
If people wish to ridicule me for that, then that is their prerogative.
I'll wish them well and God's blessings anyway.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
How so? (granted this is off topic)
Dave G
Well-Known Member
I figure that 53 men, give or take ( many of whom were fluent in Koine Greek ),
spent 7 years agonizing over whether or not the English was correct, then I doubt I'll find anything substantially wrong with it.
they were not infallible though, nor inspired!I figure that 53 men, give or take ( many of whom were fluent in Koine Greek ),
spent 7 years agonizing over whether or not the English was correct, then I doubt I'll find anything substantially wrong with it.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Also true, but @SavedByGrace is just giving a shot in the dark. He should tell us what he perceives the error to be rather then sending everyone else on a goose chase.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
I figure that 53 men, give or take ( many of whom were fluent in Koine Greek ),
spent 7 years agonizing over whether or not the English was correct, then I doubt I'll find anything substantially wrong with it.
Do you understand Greek? Because there is no doubt that it cannot read as it does in the KJV
Check other versions
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Why not just tell us this supposed error?
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
My guess is that @SavedByGrace issue with Acts 2:47 in the KJV is the use of the word should which only shows he does not know the English language if that be the case.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
I figure that 53 men, give or take ( many of whom were fluent in Koine Greek ),
spent 7 years agonizing over whether or not the English was correct, then I doubt I'll find anything substantially wrong with it.
Dr A T Robertson
Those that were being saved (tou swzomenou). Present passive participle. Probably for repetition like the imperfect prosetiqei. Better translate it "those saved from time to time." It was a continuous revival, day by day. Swzw like swthria is used for "save" in three senses (beginning, process, conclusion), but here repetition is clearly the point of the present tense.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
That verse is perfect as it is. I can't doubt the word of God just because the verse is misused to teach heresy.
That verse is perfect as it is. I can't doubt the word of God just because the verse is misused to teach heresy.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I'd still like to know what in the world he thinks the issue is with the verse.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
Acts 2:47
[47]Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. KJV
Acts 2:47
[47]praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. NASB
[47]Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. KJV
Acts 2:47
[47]praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved. NASB
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
There is literally no difference in meaning in those two translations. Not even a little.
Guess finding fault with the Lord being the One to add daily to the church, not the free will decisions of lost sinners now to get saved!
It was the work of the Lord directly Himself either passage!
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Except Esau ...
[Mal 1:3 NASB] 3 but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and [appointed] his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness."
[Rom 9:13 NASB] 13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."
[Mal 1:3 YLT] 3 Is not Esau Jacob's brother? -- an affirmation of Jehovah, And I love Jacob, and Esau I have hated, And I make his mountains a desolation, And his inheritance for dragons of a wilderness.
[Rom 9:13 YLT] 13 according as it hath been written, 'Jacob I did love, and Esau I did hate.'
[Mal 1:3 DBY] 3 and I hated Esau; and made his mountains a desolation, and [gave] his inheritance to the jackals of the wilderness.
[Rom 9:13 DBY] 13 according as it is written, I have loved Jacob, and I have hated Esau.
[Mal 1:3 WEB] 3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
[Rom 9:13 WEB] 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
[Rom 9:13 NASB] 13 Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."
[Mal 1:3 YLT] 3 Is not Esau Jacob's brother? -- an affirmation of Jehovah, And I love Jacob, and Esau I have hated, And I make his mountains a desolation, And his inheritance for dragons of a wilderness.
[Rom 9:13 YLT] 13 according as it hath been written, 'Jacob I did love, and Esau I did hate.'
[Mal 1:3 DBY] 3 and I hated Esau; and made his mountains a desolation, and [gave] his inheritance to the jackals of the wilderness.
[Rom 9:13 DBY] 13 according as it is written, I have loved Jacob, and I have hated Esau.
[Mal 1:3 WEB] 3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
[Rom 9:13 WEB] 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
(You seemed to think Young, Darby and Webster were important translations.)
For those into the original language, the word in Malachi is H8130 שָׂנֵא sânêʼ, saw-nay'; a primitive root; to hate (personally) and the word in Romans is G3404 μισέω miséō, mis-eh'-o; from a primary μῖσος mîsos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute).
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Yeah I am really scratching my head on what @SavedByGrace thinks the problem is here.
SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
It is not finding any fault with the Bible but with the KJV using its theological bias in their rendering of the Greek, which is not what the Greek says
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
What do you think the problem is? There is literally no difference between the KJV and NASB other than updated language.
- Status