Modern Versions simple cannot be trusted!

Hello, I really don't know what the fuss here is all about. I attend a Baptist Church which is "Evangelical", a term I like to use more than the Baptist, especially since I am not a Calvinist! Are you saying that because I am an Evangelical I am not a Baptist? Or, because I put my Church as being Evangelical, that I could not be a Baptist? Surely this reasoning is not logical! </font>[/QUOTE]Rules are rules, my friend, and must be complied with.

 

Where do you read that in my posts, my friend? How does asking a question about KJV editions imply blind trust in the NIV?

I see that you have been a member for almost two years. If you will do a search you will find that all of your issues have been dealt with many, many times in the past.

BTW, some basic, simple research will show you that all Baptists are not "Calvinist" as you contend.


If you continue to violate the BB rules about non-Baptists in the Baptist only forums your posts will be deleted.

 

aa0310
"I have personally being studying Textual Criticism for about 20 years, and this means the Greek Text, and the Manuscript copies that are available here in London"
"
Who are you? You just practically claimed that you paged through the original Sinaïticus and Alexandrinus yourself. That's a pretty bold claim.

"the KJV is far mor trustworthy that any of the versions that have come after it!"
"
I've got no axe to grind with those who think that the Received Text is better than the ones put together since the 19th century. I have one with folks who claim that EVERY single Bible translation after 1611 is untrustworthy however. So which one is it in your case?

"I attend a Baptist Church which is "Evangelical", a term I like to use more than the Baptist, especially since I am not a Calvinist!"
"
aa0310, why did you think that virtually all who call themselves baptists are Calvinists?

If you can't get the problem about your posting privileges sorted out, you can always pm me the answers.

 

Rules require that posters in this forum attend a Baptist Church.

Please PM me with clarification and I will take it up with administration. Until then any further posts here will be deleted.

 

aa0310: I am convinced that the vast majority of the modern versions of the Holy Bible, are not really the Word of God.

What PROOF can you provide? The AV 1611 itself denies your theory:

Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. (To The Reader, AV 1611)


While they pretend to be making the language easier to understand, like the Revised Version said did in 1885, they were in actual fact tampering with the Word of God, and editing it for their own evil purposes!

Whoever "they" are weren't 'tanpering' with anything; they were translating what was in front of them.


It is no surprise that the RV changed, "Virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, to "young woman", where she might NOT be a Virgin!

If you'd take 5 minutes to read the meaning of the hebrew word 'almah', you wouldn't make such silly statements. An almah was a virtuous young Jewish woman, whose virginity was a gimme. I WILL agree the RV's rendering was a little incomplete, but certainly not entirely wrong.

OTOH, the Greek word 'parthenos' means 'virgin' only.


Even though Matthew actually quotes that verse in his Gospel, which the meaning only to be understood as "Virgin"!

Simply a difference between Greek and Hebrew.


And in 1 Timothy 3:16, "God was manifested in the flesh...", was changed to, "Who", or "He Who", where the Greek "hos" leaves the sentence without a subject, which is incorrect in Greek grammar, where, "every sentence must contain two parts, a subject and a predicate "(W Goodwin, Greek Grammar).

You're mixed up in some of your definitions, trying to make them fit the KJVO myth. The sentence clearly has a subject and a predicate. Please show us a rule of grammar that says a PRONOUN cannot be a subject.

I think what you MEANT to say was "antecedent", the noun which a given pronoun represents. Clearly, the antecedent in 1 Tim.3:16 is "God", as shown by both the preceeding verses and the context of V.16 itself.


It is noteworthy that on the Committee for the RV, there were no less than two Unitarians, Drs J H Thayer (the Greek Lexicon scholar), and G. Vance Smith, the latter who contented that "God" had no place here! The devil surely had his way.

Have you ever studied the backgrounds of the AV translatord? At least one(Thompson) was a drunk, while several of them served both in the Star Chamber and the Court of High Commission, the british version of the Inquisition, two institutions which had more than one Baptist put to death. And remember, God can use anyone for anything. He used pagans to punish Israel, didn't He?


We also must remember the famous Trinitarian text of 1 John 5:7 (King James Version), which again the devil was successful in having removed from almost all modern versions. The lie that, because they are "absent" from surviving Greek Manuscripts, and the works of the Greek Church fathers, does NOT lead us to the conclusion that they did not form part of the original Epistle of John. The words were quoted by the Latin Church father a full 100 years before our oldest Greek Manuscript (250 A.D), Cyprian of North Africa, who also had a Greek New Testament in his possession! As it was also known to the heretic, Priscillian, who used an altered version to support his heretical view of the Holy Trinity.

This argument has been going on for at least six generations now, and is no closer to being resolved nor than it was then.

There are two "schools" of translation. One school seeks to omit nothing and adds ANY passage that MAY possibly be Scripture. This is what the AV men did. The other school seeks to not ADD
any material that may NOT be Scripture. This is the school that many modern translators, with more sources available and with many more tools than the AV men had, belong to.

Do you have any idea how many times these same arguments have been presented by KJVOs in this forum? Please read the archives. And do you know everything you've presented is part of the KJVO party line started by 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson in 1930? This whole party line has been PROVEN FALSE umpteen times, but people still pick up on it because they don't take the time to check its lack of veracity.

Yes, the devil has indeed succeeded in injecting a false doctrine(KJVO) into the Baptist ranks, as well as into other Christian bodies.

 

Now take the New World Translation and the Clear Word Translation - those are really dangerous modern versions done by the Jehovah's Witnsses and the Seventh Day Adventists respectively. But as for lumping all modern versions under the label "dangerous" - let's just say I feel you are sadly misguided...

 

aa0310
"as I have personally examined the original Codex Alexandrinus in the British Musuem Library"
"
You can't simply walk into the British Library and start pawing the Alexandrinus. You have to get permission, something not given without a very good reason.
So that's why I ask you. Who are you? Why did you get that kind of access? And why didn't you get the same kind of access to the (for textual criticism research purposes more important) codex Sinaïticus which is part of the same library?

 

Now take the New World Translation and the Clear Word Translation - those are really dangerous modern versions done by the Jehovah's Witnsses and the Seventh Day Adventists respectively. But as for lumping all modern versions under the label "dangerous" - let's just say I feel you are sadly misguided... </font>[/QUOTE]Those are not translations. They are deceptions and lies.

 

The word "almah" is not about politics. It is about accurate translation. What you have done is interpretation which is going beyond simple translation. A translator always make the choice to stick closer to the source language or the receptor language. I find it interesting that you believe the KJV to be more accurate but in Is. 7:14 you have chosen to steer away from being so close to the source language and move closer to the receptor language including interpretation. I would agree with you in that the woman could have only been a virgin. But who are we to make a Bible using our interpretation? That kind of interpreation should be left up to the commentator not the translator. A young woman who is not married in the context of the OT is a virgin. Otherwise whe would have been stoned.

So your point is a matter of how far you want to interpret and leave literal translation.

To use the LXX as an extremely credible source is to leave yourself open for some loose translation. Sometimes the LXX is like a paraphrase. If you have read the LXX you know what I mean.

Your earlier point about time examining the manuscripts and copies does not mean everything. There are men who have achieved more in a few years than others in a lifetime. A vast majority of the Semitic grammars today were written by former students of W.F. Albright. He was the person who was able to translate documents that others had been unable to.

You did not comment on how the KJV uses the words, piss, conversation, and bowels. Why not? If you are going to apply you methodology should you not also do it with the other words as well?

 

Once again a statement with not proof. I suppose we need to warn all the people God has blessed they use MVs that they are in grave danger. </font>[/QUOTE]Someday every body will be in a grave. But after that I am going with the uptaker. My body will probably be taken care of for a short time by an undertaker and then left to rot but then thje rest of me will depart to the uptaker.

 

I prefer "virgin" in Isa 7:14. But I do not believe "young woman" is the work of the devil. Read the whole chapter in context.

Oh, and also look at the other places where "almah" appears in the OT. (e.g. KJV: "maid" in Exo 2:8, Prov 30:19, "damsels" in Psa 68:25). Are these the work of the devil too?

 

Read the entire chapter in context.

But the link is still there, and it still says "virgin" in Matthew. Often, Matthew finds fulfillment of Christ in OT passages, without that OT passage originally referring to Christ. I think Isa 7:14 is one of these instances, because reading Isa 7:14 in context leads me to believe this.