The Bible wars.

[Yeshua1]

A number problems of the AV aka KJV are well known. For every KJV real fix many more errs in the modern CT and ET versions, John 6:47, Luke 4:4 are case examples.

Are you saying that while the KJv has known problems and issues, that it still in the English translation for us, not those like nas and esv ?

 

[37818]

Are you saying that while the KJv has known problems and issues, that it still in the English translation for us, not those like nas and esv ?

Yes. In John 6:47 and Luke 4:4 it does not omit God's word in agreement with the 99.5% well established reading of the manuscropts as opposed to the 0.5% or less those few inferior manuscripts omit.

 

[robycop3]

The hot issue is over how God has preserved His word to us. The textual issuses of the AV aka KJV are well known. The modern versions make far more than they fix, it is that bad.

Well, actually, NOT. The makers of new translations have far-more mss to work with, as well as modern tools such as these computers, well-lit, comfortable offices, & a worldwide quick communications network, as well as all the knowledge of their forebears.

 

[robycop3]

Yes. In John 6:47 and Luke 4:4 it does not omit God's word in agreement with the 99.5% well established reading of the manuscropts as opposed to the 0.5% or less those few inferior manuscripts omit.

No, it's NOT. Besides its numerous goofs & booboos, it's not in our language style, having many archaic and/or obsolete words.

 

[37818]

No, it's NOT. Besides its numerous goofs & booboos, it's not in our language style, having many archaic and/or obsolete words.

Ah, the AV aka KJV 12 grade reading level. As "bad" as you suppose the KJV to be it is more true than the so called modern Blbles.

Well, actually, NOT. The makers of new translations have far-more mss to work with, as well as modern tools such as these computers, well-lit, comfortable offices, & a worldwide quick communications network, as well as all the knowledge of their forebears.

They make use of bad manuscript readings. John 6:47 and Luke 4:4 are case examples!

 

[robycop3]

Ah, the AV aka KJV 12 grade reading level. As "bad" as you suppose the KJV to be it is more true than the so called modern Blbles.

Well, not REALLY. No MV has "Easter' in Acts 12:4, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10, nor any of the other goofs we've pointed out in the KJV. And, the MNs are in OUR language style.

They make use of bad manuscript readings. John 6:47 and Luke 4:4 are case examples!

Were you there when any of those mss. were made? Do you know who wrote any of them where, & what sources they used ? If not, you can't be a critic of them.

 

[37818]

Were you there when any of those mss. were made? Do you know who wrote any of them where, & what sources they used ? If not, you can't be a critic of them.

Oh, so you were there.

You choose corrupt readings over the true word of God. 0.5% or less over the 99.5% manuscript evidence, case examlpes, Luke 4:4 and John 6:47.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. In John 6:47 and Luke 4:4 it does not omit God's word in agreement with the 99.5% well established reading of the manuscropts as opposed to the 0.5% or less those few inferior manuscripts omit.

Inferior based upon what?

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, actually, NOT. The makers of new translations have far-more mss to work with, as well as modern tools such as these computers, well-lit, comfortable offices, & a worldwide quick communications network, as well as all the knowledge of their forebears.

We simply know much more then they did back in 1611 in regards to the manuscript evidences, and the biblical Hebrew and Greek languages!

 

[Yeshua1]

Ah, the AV aka KJV 12 grade reading level. As "bad" as you suppose the KJV to be it is more true than the so called modern Blbles.



They make use of bad manuscript readings. John 6:47 and Luke 4:4 are case examples!

The Kjv is known to be harder to read with understanding though, and so why not have others use modern versions to be able to read with understanding?

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh, so you were there.

You choose corrupt readings over the true word of God. 0.5% or less over the 99.5% manuscript evidence, case examlpes, Luke 4:4 and John 6:47.

I think that the differences between kjv and Nkjv/Esv/Nas etc are negligible though, as no doctrines are altered or changed!

 

[robycop3]

Oh, so you were there.

You choose corrupt readings over the true word of God. 0.5% or less over the 99.5% manuscript evidence, case examlpes, Luke 4:4 and John 6:47.

Newp! I TRUST GOD to have made His word in the mss. & manners HE chose. You're no ms. authority, & neither am I. As GOD preserved them all, again, I TRUST HIM in those matters.

 

[Van]

1. The MT, TR, CT agree. Highest percentage.
2. The MT, TR agree verses the CT. Next highest percentage.
3. The MT, CT agree verses the TR. 3rd or 4th highest percentage.
4. The TR, CT agree verses the MT. 3rd or 4th highest percentage.

I wish the TR was simply removed from the discussion, and the verses where the CT and MT disagree (or a few of them) were presented so an independent assessment could be made. Say three examples from #2 and three examples from #4.

 

[37818]

Inferior based upon what?

Those old mss are known for having more variants (errors) and being less accurate.

 

[37818]

Newp! I TRUST GOD to have made His word in the mss. & manners HE chose. You're no ms. authority, & neither am I. As GOD preserved them all, again, I TRUST HIM in those matters.

Well, well established readings being typically better than the so called oldest and best reading. The bad readins of Luke 4:4 and John 6:47 are the very small evidence of 0.5% or less. Their well established readings being 99.5%.
At issue is dening the word of God based on very small number and not typicaly reliable mss.

 

[Yeshua1]

Those old mss are known for having more variants (errors) and being less accurate.

Being the most attested to does not mean always would be the best rendering though!

 

[37818]

No, it's NOT. Besides its numerous goofs & booboos, it's not in our language style, having many archaic and/or obsolete words.

The modern versions do far more errors on purpose supposing errors for the word of God. Prove this is not the case.

If you were a jurer and there were witnesses on both sides of a man being guiltly or not guity, 20 witness and 2. which side would you go? Most mss versus (across mss types) a few mss (one mss type).

 

[Yeshua1]

The modern versions do far more errors on purpose supposing errors for the word of God. Prove this is not the case.

If you were a jurer and there were witnesses on both sides of a man being guiltly or not guity, 20 witness and 2. which side would you go? Most mss versus (across mss types) a few mss (one mss type).

You are assuming that the MT though is the best and most correct text, so everything based off of that Presumption!

 

[37818]

Being the most attested to does not mean always would be the best rendering though!

So you would argue the Bible is not reliable because it (one or two very old mss) taught the whole earth was in darkness by a solar eclipes on the day of a full moon.

 

[Yeshua1]

So you would argue the Bible is not reliable because it (one or two very old mss) taught the whole earth was in darkness by a solar eclipes on the day of a full moon.

No, would state that the manuscripts reflected by the CT tradition were not all "satanic inspired/corrupted"