Translator Question

The differences are far more than punctuation and spelling. You should know that if you know much about this subject. Some regard the addition or deletion of God's name. Others involved the addition or deletion of others words. Some of the errors still remain to this day (Heb 10:23). I have not argued for the perfection of any translation. Such would be impossible, as the fundamentalists have always said.

The principle of Scripture is clearly that any faithful translation is the word of God. It is evidenced by the OT citations, the NT citations, and the references of Scripture to itself.

I am not using an Alexandrian Bible.

You have misunderstood. I have given the biblical support for my position. There are apparently many things you do not know about this issue. That does not mean I made you like look an ignorant unlearned dork. I have spoken for you at all. I have simply tried to point you to some answers that are Scriptural and increase our understanding of this matter. It is not important for all to read the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. It helps to listen to those who do however.

This issue is easily solved by thinking through the implications of the position that we take. If we argue that the KJV alone is the word of God, then we must of necessity argue that no one had the word of God before the KJV. Even then, there is a problem because the KJV went through multiple revisions, something incompatible with revelation from God. Assuming that the changes were only spelling or punctuation (which is demonstrably untrue), you have a God who can't get the spelling right. I disagree. YOu cannot even claim that the word of God existed before 1611 because everything before 1611 is different than the KJV. If the KJV is perfect, as you claim, then everything before is imperfect. I disagree. I think the word of God did exist before 1611 and I have refused to blow through the obvious objections.

If you argue that the KJV is the best translation, that is a more reasonable argument. I can agree to disagree about that. But that is a discussion that can be reasonably had.

I would recommend you get some of the books that I mentioned earlier to acquaint yourselves with some information that would help you understand these issues.

 

I am not aware that anyone here is using a Bible that omits the blood or the virgin birth. While these arguments have been often thrown out, they have never been substantiated. It is unfortunate that some are not studying the Bible to find out whether these things are true.

 

Verse & chapter please that supports Alexandrian "bibles".

[ December 22, 2002, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Well what is the final authority in 2002?

</font>[/QUOTE]Why is it that you cannot answer my simple question? Why do you make attempts at redirection?

Very well, I will give you both an answer and a hint: the final authority in 2002 is the *same* as the final authority in 1605. Now, again, what was the final authority in 1605?

Rom 10:17, 1 Cor 12:3, and 2 Cor 3:6. Also, the KJV translators.

I don't use Bibles that omit those things.

[ December 22, 2002, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

I am not sure what an "Alexandrian Bible" is. Perhaps you could define it in such a way that would make sense ... Of course I know what you are talking about when you use the term. It is a term that you have picked up from someone who didn't know what they were talking about. The reality is that "Alexandrian Bibles" only exist in your mind because you have been told that MVs came out of Alexandria. That is somethign that is false, a misteaching. It is easy to propogate such an untruth among those who will not do their homework. You want a verse to deny the use of something that doesn't exist anyway. The MVs are based on all of the available manuscript evidence. Certain manuscripts are not thrown out simply because they were found more recently than others were. We believe that 8 manuscripts is simply too small of a sample, especially when those manuscripts give evidence of additions. There are very clear and demonstrable reasons for their methods of selecting textual variants. It is different in substance than Erasmus' methods of selecting textual variants.

My point is not about Alexandrian Bibles. It is about Bibles that are not the KJV. Christ used them; Paul used them; Peter used them. Everyone prior to 1611 used them. A great many Christians since 1611 use them. Many Christians today use them and have great spiritual growth and increased knowledge of God that comes from using a Bible in their own language. In fact, the vast majority of people saved in church history have been from other versions than the KJV. That should call us to look past our own preferences to the bigger picture.

I am amazed by those who would like to deny the word of God to people in their own language, in spite of the evidence of God's word.

 

Well put, Pastor Larry... well put.

--Ralph

 

They are bibles that came from corrupt Greek texts edited by Gnostics & philosophers from Alexandria,Egypt.

They did;Alexandrian text,get it?? see the association?

Prove it.

So you are saying people who dont use MV's are unlearned??

Again, chapter & verse please.

 

This thread is indeed an interesting and fascinating conversation. I love the different Bibles (all of them) and have programmed a verse comparison web application (many of my published books--over 90 now, thank the Lord for giving me nimble fingers and a mind that sorta keeps up with the dashing digits--are about computers). This ap currently has eight Bibles in it (and I'll add more as time and copyright considerations permit). Right now, I can offer you:

American Standard Version, 1901
Bible in Basic English
Darby's Translation (1890)
King James Version (1611)
Webster's Translation, 1833
John Wycliffe's Old English Translation of 1380 (NT only)
World English Bible
Young's Literal Translation, 1898

You may access it here. Enjoy. No charge or obligation. I offer this in the hope that it helps the debate here, especially in the accuracy of quoting scripture comparisons to make various points.

--Ralph

[ December 22, 2002, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Author ]

 

Joel 2:6 might be a good verse for someone to expound upon (see Bible comparison ap in previous message). I see three different colors between versions.

--Ralph

 

They are bibles that came from corrupt Greek texts edited by Gnostics & philosophers from Alexandria,Egypt. </font>[/QUOTE]Prove it. "chapter & verse please".

Why did the KJV *explicitly* call an Alexandrian Bible (and one that differs from the KJV even more than modern versions do), "the word of God"?

 

Unless you have uncovered some very recent new evidence, this "editing" has never been shown to have taken place. It is but another place where you have put your faith in the wrong thing.

Your initial assumption was wrong about the "association" with texts that weren't edited to begin with. You see, your whole foundation is faulty. It is like the guy who built a house on the sand. When the sand shifts, so does your house that you have built it on.

This has been proved in too many places to list here. I will again reference to one of the many books such as those by James White, D.A. Carson, or the Central Baptist Theological Seminary profs in "One Bible Only?"

No I didn't say that. If you read my post you wouldn't have even asked. I am not making any statement about people who don't use MVs. My statements are in respect to those who say that the KJV is the only word of God. They are either mislead or willfully lying. Usually it is the former. I am not making any statement about those who prefer the KJV or think the KJV is the best translation. So don't get that confused in your thinking.

Again, chapter & verse please.</font>[/QUOTE]Look at any NT quotations. There is not one citation in the NT that came of the KJV. They are all, without exception, from something other than the KJV. (I can't believe I even have to explain that one.) Christ quoted from something other than the KJV and he considered authoritative and inspired. Therefore, you should not be either upset, shaken, or offended when someone else does.

 

Wescott & Hort used Alexandrian texts when compiling their corrupt Greek text,you know the ones used in the corrupt Alexandrian bibles;even the most novice of bible student knows that...

Do you know without a shadow of a doubt it does? where is your proof? where does it say they quoted from somthing Alexandrian? chapter & verse please..

On the contrary, I have put my faith in the pure word of GOD, the KJV;not some Alexandrian perversion!!

It was not even around until 1611.

[ December 22, 2002, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Speaking again of my Bible verse comparison web ap, I got ambitious this afternoon (beats watching football) and added the Douay-Rheims Bible (my tastes, indeed, are sometimes catholic, so to speak).

You may access the comparison page here.

--Ralph

 

Do you know without a shadow of a doubt it does? where is your proof? where does it say they quoted from somthing Alexandrian? chapter & verse please..
</font>[/QUOTE]I apologize for my typo. I meant the KJV *translators* explicitly called an Alexandrian Bible (and one that differs from the KJV even more than modern versions do), "the word of God".

JYD, I also notice you have been avoiding answering "what was the final authority in 1605?" Please, don't expect us to answer you if you refuse to answer us.

 

Bible students don't know this because it is not true. You assume the texts are corrupted. Not having the originals you cannot prove that. For all you know it may be other texts that are corrupted. Can you not see how you are reasoning from a faulty supposition? Let's further clarify that no one is using the Westcott and Hort text today. We are way past that.

But as has been demonstrated numerous places, the "Alexandrian perversion" is no perversion at all. There is no such thing as an Alexandrian Bible as we have already said. The texts to which you refer are pieces of manuscript evidence that must be considered. You cannot simply dispose of a copy of God's word because you don't like it.

It was not even around until 1611.</font>[/QUOTE]Bingo ... Prime evidence that things other than the KJV can be called the word of God. It shows your position to be wrong; it shows our position to be right. Things other than the KJV that are not identical to the KJV can still be called the word of God and can still be appealed to as authoritative. Can you see now why we are disagreeing with your presuppositions and your arguments? It is becuase they cannot stand the test of the text.

 

The Geneva bible would fit the bill for 1605;what is your(if any)final authority here in late 2002?? Of course one would need believe Psalms 12:6-7 to see why the Geneva is the word of God in 1605 or today as opposed to the Alexandrian perversions that derived from "the oldest & best" manuscripts.

Now, I answered your petty little question:now hows about you answer mine,chapter & verse please to support the Alexandrian bibles.....

 

Sure they are;just pick up any NASV,ASV,NIV,ect...& there it is..

Neither can you prove they are not corrupt because the originals are gone.

So using corrupted versions from corrupted text is right?? my my...

Yep, most folks dislike being wrong

 

Larry I have to wonder if you really are a pastor why you have so much time to spend questioning. Secondly you or noone you know have ever seen the originals you talk about one day in their life.Don't worry about KJ people willfully lying or being deceived we know the issue. I have seen your kind so many times it's sickening.Every so called bible outside the KING JAMES IS A LIE STRAIGHT FROM SATAN HIMSELF. Don't say they don't leave the blood out they do. In fact the NIV leaves out the name of Jesus over 30 times int the New Test. They are from the pit of hell and I for one will be glad when God throws them there.I hope God will take every bible rejector and make them where a KING JAMES sign around their neck all through the millenium.If someone wants to use a new version let them but don't push your originals garbage on us. THERE ARE NOOOORIGINALS!!!!! YOu can wrap it up as pretty as you want a lie is still a lie and Satan is the father of it.For anyone seeking truth go to biblebeliever.com and you will be exposed to truth.Look up the issues and listen to the preaching on that site you will thank God you did.I've seen bible correctors at work and they don't vary.They all sound like Larry.I've been in their churches they are completely void of God's power. The presence of the Holy Spirit is not there. They manufacture things to try to make you think God is working.You want to be exposed to God's hand on something seek out a Bible believing church I'm talking about a KING JAMES BIBLE CHURCH.Not a new version perversion church.Don't let a slick talker impress you with their so called evidence they don't have any.As I said the bible issue is a heart and faith issue and all the evidence presented either way will not change that.Normally I would be non confrontational but I am sick to death of people bad mouthing my bible and then when they are called on it saying "be nice" "don't be mean" Well don't mess with my bible!!!

 

The Geneva bible would fit the bill for 1605;</font>[/QUOTE]No, that answer is unacceptable. What was the final authority in 1605? If it was the Geneva, but was replaced by the KJV, it was not final.

I already told you - the same final authority as existed in 1605.

I already provided chapter and verse, even though you have not really answered my question. Rom 10:17, 1 Cor 12:3, and 2 Cor 3:6. Also, the KJV translators.

[ December 22, 2002, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]