My Problems With MV's

[EdSutton]

God in His sovereignty chose the Bible to be written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. There is no version debate about what God chose.

Exactly!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Acts 8:37 is not found in the NIV. Where the eunuch professes Christ as Savior as the pre requisite for baptism. Can an infant be saved? Of course not but they can be baptized if you have no doctrine to teach them otherwise

Not true!

Ac. 8:37 is to be found in the NIV. It's in the foot-notes - you know - those things the KJV translators put in the 1611 KJV, which have since been removed from most later, altered editions.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

God has promised to preserve His Word forever. If there was not the King James Bible then God's people would have been without the Word of God for hundreds of years. If that was the case then God is not true to His Word and the Bible that you claim to believe is not worth the paper that it was written on. Why do scholars feel they need to improve on the Word of God? These other versions were written by men who wanted to make the Bible fit into their doctrine instead of letting the Bible (as written)shape their doctrine.

Uh - 'scuse me!

(Remember, I told you told have your "hard-hat".)

You are attempting to make three supposed points, here, and simultaneously attempting to roll them into one. And I'll add to mention, that this argument is bogus after the first sentence.

The Geneva Bible was around in 1611, and had been for about half a century. It happens to be a reputable translation, IMO. So were such versions and translations as Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Great, Bishop's and a few more. And that is just in 'modern' English language, at that.

Nowhere that I am aware of does Scripture ever promise to give the English-speaking people any special status, in this, from what I am able to ascertain. Is not the Luther Bibel and/or Wycliffe and/or Vulgate and even the Douai a valid translation? (Remember, a translation does not have to be in "modern" English, or even in English!)

And even if any 'English-speaking preference' did occur, if these English versions I named above were, in fact, "valid versions" in 1610, did they suddenly become "invalid versions" in 1611? That makes no sense, unless someone is claiming "additional revelation" for the KJV!

The supposed argument about who wrote (you should mean translated) other versions, is also bogus, in the same manner. NOt to mantion, the implied 'agenda' of other translators, as well. In fact, the KJV was 'ordered' exactly to support some particular ideas, in places, because of King James I, and some churchmen not liking some notes in the Geneva. So much for not having any agenda, I'd say.

Ed

 

[Jim1999]

quote: Ac. 8:37 is to be found in the NIV
---------------------------------

Sorry Ed, but verse 37 is NOT in the NIV.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[gb93433]

In the NIV Acts 8:37 is in the footnotes.
"Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=8&version=31#en-NIV-27202

Just as there have been several KJV versions there are also several NIV versions. Basically there was one different version each year for awhile.

 

[annsni]

quote: Ac. 8:37 is to be found in the NIV
---------------------------------

Sorry Ed, but verse 37 is NOT in the NIV.

Cheers,

Jim

Jim - I picked up my NIV and looked for it and it's there.

 

[Jim1999]

My 1978 NIV reads:

"36 as they travelled along the road, they came to some water and te eunuch said, "look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" a 38 and he ordered the chariot to stop. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him........39

footnote a) Philip said, if you believe with all your heart, you may The official answered I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God....end of footnote, but it is not in the text.

Must have different printing in different editions.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Jim1999]

sorry,,it duplicated

 

[Baptist4life]

My 1978 NIV reads:

"36 as they travelled along the road, they came to some water and te eunuch said, "look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?" a 38 and he ordered the chariot to stop. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him........39

footnote a) Philip said, if you believe with all your heart, you may The official answered I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God....end of footnote, but it is not in the text.

Must have different printing in different editions.

Cheers,

Jim

What?? There are problems with an MV? I thought there were only problems with the KJV!! :laugh:

 

[franklinmonroe]

I do not have the reference off the top of my head for Joseph as his "Father"...

That would be Luke 2:33. However, it is irrelevent since the Gospels clearly identify Joseph as Jesus' custodial parent (KJV) --

Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. (Luke 1:41)

Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. (John 1:45)

And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? (John 6:42)​

 

[annsni]

What?? There are problems with an MV? I thought there were only problems with the KJV!! :laugh:

Nah - they're all done by man so there will be issues.

I got a new Reformation Study Bible a few years ago. It was missing a ton of pages - from the end of Psalms to the end of Song of Solomon.

The first edition of the ESV that was recently updated in 2007 (the original came out in 2001) forgot a word in Genesis 30:35 so it reads "But that day Laban removed the male goats that were striped and spotted, and all the female goats that were speckled and spotted, every one that had white on it, and every lamb that was black, and put them in charge of his sons." The updated version ends the verse with "and every lamb that was black, and put them in the charge of his sons." So that it makes more sense. The sons were in charge - not the sheep.

 

[EdSutton]

quote: Ac. 8:37 is to be found in the NIV
---------------------------------

Sorry Ed, but verse 37 is NOT in the NIV.

Cheers,

Jim

I did not say that Ac. 8:37 was to be found in the "text-body" but rather went on to say that it is found in the footnotes, as I believe another has already pointed out, as well.

The apparent reason for this, is that the NIV translators must not have believed there was enough 'textual evidence' to warrant it's inclusion in the text body (considering that they did not include the verse there), but did acknowledge the fact of its existence, at least in some 'textual traditions' by including this verse in the footnote(s). I believe you will find this footnote inclusion, in every NIV, given that this is a "copyrighted" version, but am not absolutely sure about this, I admit.

Whether or not I happen to believe (or not believe) that there is sufficient evidence for this verse is completely irrelevant. But the fact remains that the verse can be found, in the NIV, even if it is not to be found where you and/or I might (or might not, as the case may be) prefer.

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

Ed's gripe session: I hate the BB Editior clash with my editor. I took the BB citations off-line, edited them with my editior, now they are all messed up as I go back to the BB Editor. If I try to put together a post this size on-line, BB edition won't get through about 1/3 of the time Sorry about the formatting here But it messed up the quoted people, back then I wrote short lines so the formatting would last - so only the PRO looks bad here but it isn't his fault)


The opening post (OP) says:

// The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found

among the contradictory modern bible versions. //
...
// ... or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the

“righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8 ... //

I didn't see any difference of significance. So I researched the matter. Here is a page where a Professional KJVO Aploogist discusses the matter. I read it. I still see no difference of signifance. I certainly don't see any difference worthy of having a church split over (i.e. difference of doctrine).

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Rev19-8.html

Here are some of my replies to this in the past (does anybody beleive in checking the search funcitons on the BB /poor/ or on Google? BB subscribes to Google, so you can find lots of discussion about say "Revelation 19:8" that are in // baptistboard.com //

-----------------------------
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=25474

03-18-2004, 08:21 AM

Will J. Kinney: "Our only hope of righteousness before
God is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness
of Christ."

Amen, Brother Will J. Kinney -- Preach it!

Will J. Kinney "Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being

arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF

SAINTS."

Will J. Kinney "Versions that read like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles

Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, John Wesley's 1755

translation, Green’s interlinear, Webster's translation of 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera of

1909, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Third

Millenium Bible, the 21st Century KJV, and even the modern paraphrase called The

Message.

Will J. Kinney "But the NKJV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, “the

fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” (or "the righteous deeds of God's

people") If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty

soiled and tattered. At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the

same thing here. So, which one is true?"

I don't think i'll be adminiting any such things.
All the versions i have and the ones you mention
all teach THE SAME THING: and it is as you said
in your first verse. Why did you forget your
general principle that you had learned from your
Bible when you read the other Bibles? You perchance
didn't believe it very much? The Devil robbed you
of your joy of understanding?

Also my brother, you are being very deceptive.
Ever heard of a "context"? Sometimes a useful
concept for the understanding of the Holy Scripture.
Look at the preceeding verse:

Reuelation XIX:7 (KJV1611):

Let vs bee glad and reioyce, adn
give honor tohim : for the marriage of
the Lambe is come, and his wife hath
made herselfe readie.

Sorry Bro. that shatters everything you
said. But still i won't abandon so quickly as
you did your general principle (gained by
studying other scriptures and NOT JUST ONE SCRIPTURE))
that:

"Our only hope of righteousness before
God is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness
of Christ."

By this general principle, the bride could not
have made herself ready as said in verse 7,
only Jesus has made her, the Bride, the church,
ready.

I speak of "my salvation". But it really isn't
my salvation, Jesus paid it all. So it is
God's salvation, not mine - the salvation belongs
to GOd, not to me. Yet still i say "my salvation"
because it pertainteth to me.

------------------------------
same page
03-18-2004, 08:05 AM

2 Corinthians 13:1 (NLT):

This is the third time I am coming to visit you.
As the Scriptures say,
"The facts of every case must be established
by the testimony of two or three witnesses."

Thus, I will make no doctrine which
hinges upon one and only one verse of the
Bible.

So, if one finds a verse in a passage that
might weaken God's doctrine, then i shall
refure it with another verse which does
teach God's doctrine.
------------------------------

The Professional's argument continue to be weak, the amateur's argument is still strong!
Remember, amateurs built the Arck of Moses, professionals built the Titanic

 

[robycop3]

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV); 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).






There are so many differences in the MV's that I choose to stick with the KJV. MY personal choice..you are free to pick whatever version YOU like. Please, please, lay off the KJV. OK?

B4L, it appears you copied something from Brandplucked. And as I showed him on another forum, many of the probs are of your own making.

Let's look at one example-Michal vs Merab.

We shall let the KJV itself clarify this:

1 Samuel 18:10But it came to pass at the time when Merab Saul's daughter should have been given to David, that she was given unto Adriel the Meholathite to wife.

2 Samuel 6:23Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.


2 Samuel 21:8
But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

We plainly see that the sons of Michal were really MERAB'S sons; apparently she and Adriel had both died so Aunt Michal raised them. Therefore it's not at all improper to call them Merab's sons, for they WERE Merab's sons!

All the other stuff above can easily be similarly explained. Just blindly accepting every KJV reading as automatically correct is automatically INcorrect.

 

[Rippon]

Just blindly accepting every KJV reading as automatically correct is automatically INcorrect.

But that's the KJVO mentality,i.e.the KJV is the perfect standard.Anything that deviates (except other KJV's) from this fixed line is wrong and not really the true,one-and-only Word of God!For anyone to suggest and demonstrate errors in the KJV is guilty of attacking God's Word.

 

[robycop3]

I don't think too many earnest baptists who really wanna learn all they can about God's word pay much attention to the KJVOs any more. More and more are finding out how incorrect it is, especially when they see stuff like what B4L copied from Brandplucked and actually seek the answers for themselves why those variant readings between versions exist.

 

[gb93433]

I don't think too many earnest baptists who really wanna learn all they can about God's word pay much attention to the KJVOs any more. More and more are finding out how incorrect it is, especially when they see stuff like what B4L copied from Brandplucked and actually seek the answers for themselves why those variant readings between versions exist.

The problem is that Satan is using them as fodder for the conversations among non-Christians in a city instead of the non-Christians seeing Christ. Even non-Christians know how foolish their arguments are.

 

[Askjo]

That would be Luke 2:33. However, it is irrelevent since the Gospels clearly identify Joseph as Jesus' custodial parent (KJV) --

Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. (Luke 1:41)

Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. (John 1:45)

And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? (John 6:42)




​

The difference between "parent" and "father" is related and unrelated. Suppose, if I am not your child, should I write a letter, "Dear father ..."?

Luke was wise to write his gospel. He said, "Joseph" reflecting to no conflict with the diety of Jesus Christ.

John 6:42 talked about the Jews' comment concerning Joseph being Jesus' father, but the question: Did they KNOW that Jesus is the Son of God?

 

[Mexdeaf]

The difference between "parent" and "father" is related and unrelated. Suppose, if I am not your child, should I write a letter, "Dear father ..."?

Luke was wise to write his gospel. He said, "Joseph" reflecting to no conflict with the diety of Jesus Christ.

John 6:42 talked about the Jews' comment concerning Joseph being Jesus' father, but the question: Did they KNOW that Jesus is the Son of God?

Non-sequitur argument.

 

[annsni]

The difference between "parent" and "father" is related and unrelated. Suppose, if I am not your child, should I write a letter, "Dear father ..."?

Luke was wise to write his gospel. He said, "Joseph" reflecting to no conflict with the diety of Jesus Christ.

John 6:42 talked about the Jews' comment concerning Joseph being Jesus' father, but the question: Did they KNOW that Jesus is the Son of God?

Jesus was as much Joseph's child as I am my father's child. He's not my father by blood but by adoption. So I can't call him "father"? To EVERYONE who knew the family of Joseph, Jesus was his son.