Anti-MV-ite speaking of Modern Versions:
//But not all agree.
like Acts 8:37 NIV Ommited, the blood, missing where it
should be and many ommitted texts tha are vital to the faith.
I will not bow down, I am not for sale' and wont compramise; OK?
I dont have to defend the Word "it will defend itself"
If only God would open some blind guides eyes,lest we all
fall in the ditch we should stick to tradition and sound doctorine.
That's the one thing that has kept Fundamentalism from crumbeling.//
There is a problem with telling what the NIV says, without having
an NIV to check and see if that it what it really says -
that makes one look like they don't know how to debate.
Here, where it is obvious that one missed out on the
verse addy & verse content match (Acts 8:37 does not contain
the world 'blood' in the KJV1769 Version). Of course, this is
probably just a typeo (Acts 8:37 on one line, 'the blood' on another
line), but it points out one possible problem with NOT CHECKING
to see if your source correctly quoted the Bible.
For example, the same anti-MV-ite says:
//2 Timothy 2:15 ...
"Study to show thyself approved,a workman
that needed not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth"AV 1611//
We have discussed on this Versions board at lenth that
the proper way to say this (that is true also):
2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV1769 Edition):
//Study to show thyself approved,a workman
that needed not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth"//
The KJV1611 Edition says some other words and has other
puncuation.
Anti-MV-ite: //I dont have to defend the Word "it will defend itself"//
Then why do some anti-MV-ites feel it is necessary to malin
Dead Brothers Wesctott & Hort? Why is it necessary for some
anti-MV-ites to misquote Wescott & Hort and commit
character assassination by ellipsis (...)
Acutaly the local posters are quoting from some other
source who is committing character assassination by ellipsis (...).
But those who don't check their sources are parties to the
crime

NOt to mention that this Forum has often shown the
true quotes and how the character assassination by ellipsis (...)
took place. But still some want to come to this board and
spread evil gossip about Westcott and Hort making these simple
Greek source compilers out to be Satan's BOSS. I can't figure
out why???
// ... the only place in the Holy Bible it tells us to Study but they
had to "Change"and"Change".//
The only place where the KJV says it? Interesting.
How much of your doctrine is based on ONE VERSE? Unfortunately,
when you argue with Ed about this, you are arguing with the
guy who is documenting "Misunderstandings of the KJV that
mess up Folk's doctrines". This is one of them.
The Greek Word translated "study" hear is better translated
in 2006 by the English word "be diligent". (In 1611
'study' meant 'be diligent' as well as study meaning it's
current mening 'look at carefully'.)
Here is a translation of the TR on the matter:
2 Timothy 2:15 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ) :
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
a worker who doesn't need to be ashamed, correctly teaching
the word of truth.
This passage is for TEACHERS not for STUDENTS.
Anti-MV-ite speaking againts the local dignities*:
// Its Sad; but when I got called
to preach I never thought that the "Wars and Rummors of wars"
would be in our own back yard. I bet you any thing that Phillip
has got his finger on the delete button as I'm wrtting this, ... //
* be sure to look up scriptures in the KJV1769 that
have the word 'dignities' in them (especially 2 Peter 2:10, read
the context). As far as I can tell, the moderator/dignity, Phillip,
was getting rid of the debasement of OTHER PEOPLE's BIBLES,
not trying to squash discussion. Recall that my Bible,
the HCSB and nKJV were both TR preferred translations and
both MVs. BTW, I also use DAILY two different KJVs:
1. the KJV1611 Edition
2. The KJV1769 Edition (with Strong's numbers)
As well, I use a third KJV on a weekly basis:
3. The KJV1873 Edition (may well be a KJV1850 Editon???)
Anti-MV-ite: //The NIV is not an Translation, it is a vesion.//
Ed Edwards: //Please delineate your definitions of 'translation' and
of 'version' such that your statement is correct. Thank you
for helping us understand what it is you are saying. //
Anti-MV-ite: //OK, The KJB is TR; and all other MV's are not!
They may contain words that have some TR, and some LV,
and some GB, But not all agree.//
Thank you for your response. At least I know more about where you
are coming from and where you are at versionially speaking.
However, you didn't discriminate between 'translation'
and 'version'.
-----------------------------------------------
My Definitions:
TRANSLATION - the changing of the words of the Bible in
one language to the words of another language
VERSION - the changing of the words of the Bible into
a language which already has the words of the Bible
written in that langauge.
As you can see, my definition of 'Version' makes it a subset
of 'Translation'. My definition also makes the "King James Version"
a proper name given on many KJVs. For when the KJV was
first translated, it was into a language where Bibles already
existed.
Using my definitions, this statement is false:
//The NIV is not an Translation, it is a vesion.//
The NIV is both a Translation and a Version.
I'm still trying to figure out a set of known definitions
of the two terms in which the statement is true.
-----------------------------------------------
Let me see:
Strawman definition: TRANSLATION
- the changing of the words of the Bible in
one language to the words of another language
Strawman definition: VERSION
- the changing of the words of the Bible into
other words within the same language
With these definitions, I have two versions, no three:
1. The KJV1769 which is a version of the KJV1611
2. The KJV1873 which is a version of the KJV1769
3. The READER'S DIGEST BIBLE which is a version of the NASB.
But even with these definitions, the following statement is false:
//The NIV is not an Translation, it is a vesion.//
With these ammended definitions, the NIV is a translation
not a version.
-----------------------------------------------