-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"valid" versions
- Thread starter small fry
- Start date
- Status
trustitl said:
It's not that simple.I have quoted from a valuable book in the past.It's called :The Challenge Of Bible Translation.It's published by Zondervan and was released in 2003.The second chapter is by Kenneth L.Barker.He quotes Ron Youngblood on page 56.Here is part of what Youngblood said:
To render the Greek word sarx by "flesh" viritually every time it appears does not require the services of a translator;all one needs is a dictionary (or better yet,a computer).But to recognize that sarx has differing connotations in different contexts,that in addition to "flesh" it often means "human standards" or "earthly descent"or "sinful nature" or "sexual impulse" or "person," etc.,and therefore to translate sarx in avariety of ways is to understand that translation is not only a mechanical,word-for-word process but also a [contextually -- Rip] nuanced,thought-for-thought procedure.
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
Are you under the impression that modern day translators have concocted their translations based on the KJV?When you speak of changes and so forth do you labor under the misperception that the KJV is the Standard by which other translations have originated?If so -- you're mistaken.
Ed Edwards said:
Sinaiticus was corrupted by gnostics in Alexandria Egypt.
I don't think that the words of gnostic heretics are the Word of God.
More facts about corrupted Sinaiticus:
It contains nearly all the new testament plus it adds "the shepherd of Hermes" and "the epistle of Barnabus" to the new testament.
Hermes is a Greek false god in Greek mythology.
Olympian false god of boundaries and of the travelers that cross them.
If the writer of sinaiticus tried to include a story about a Greek false god, Hermes, into the New Testament that should tell you the writer of sinaiticus it is not a Christian. Don't trust what he writes.
Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable.
10 20 and even 40 words are dropped through shear carelessness, in Sinaiticus, on many occasions. Letters, words or whole sentences are written twice over, frequently; or begun an immediately cancelled. The gross blunder that a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding occurs no less than 115 times in the new testament.
According to John Burgon who spent years studying Sinaiticus.
On nearly every page of the sinaiticus manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people. Some of these corrections were made about the same time it was copied, but most were made in the 6th or 7th century.
Source: LET'S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE, BY Barry Burton
To use something like that to try to correct the majority text of the new testament is gross error.
Westcott and Hort took vaticanus and sinaiticus, two corrupted greek manuscripts from Alexandria, and with them they wrote a whole new greek text. Everywhere these corrupted manuscripts disagreed with the traditional byzantine majority text, they chose the words of the corrupted manuscripts. They put this all into a completely new greek text, that they invented in 1881.
Many modern versions are translated from their invented greek text. It dates no further back than 1881. Rsv, nasb, niv are translations of this greek text Westcott and Hort invented in 1881.
The King James version is translated from the traditional Jewish Old Testament, the massoretic text, dating back to the time of Moses. The massoretes compiled it, at a later time.
The King James New Testament is translated from the traditional text of the New Testament of the Greek speaking poeople in Asia minor, where Paul did his missionary work. It is the majority byzantine text, translated by Erasmus called the textus receptus or the received text.
References to the Byzantine text can be traced back to about AD 150 with the first peshitta.
The King James version is the real Word of God that was preserved for the English speaking people.
Niv, nasb, rsv, etc. are an invention of Hort and Westcott in 1881, and then later translated by others.
Ed Edwards said:
Chick publications is a very credible source. He documents what he says with references from others.
You don't like it because he uses a comic book format; well many people find that format entertaining and like that format too. The information in them is real and a credible source.
Catholics that pretend to be protestant always speak against Chick no matter what truth he says.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
antiaging said:
How did you get access to the live feed from my house's telly to the Vatican? You caught me - that is me, a Catholic posing as a protestant - sorry, thats just too funny.
I think a REAL Catholic plant would post silly, ridiculous, absurd supposed anti-Catholic propaganda so that we will think it so absurd that we ignore the very real errors in the church.
I would rather let the Holy Spirit help poor saps like me read what Paul said rather than what some 21st century translators with theological bias' think what Paul meant. Yea, I know you can come up with some obscure example that will make this sound foolish this changing of sarx into something other than flesh is not one of them.Rippon said:
Actually the Bible says:Amy.G said:
"provoke not your children to wrath"
And for those unable to understand the KJV:
"don't make your children bitter about life"
"do not make your children angry"
To say that setting up training sessions for a one year old is entrapment is amazing. I taught all 6 of my children the meaning of the word "NO" at a very early age (around 1) under controlled circumstances rather than waiting for them to do something they shouldn't.
It is not teaching them to disobey by placing a cup of hot coffee on a table within their reach and saying "no" when they reach for it. And it did not provoke any of my children to anger when I gave them a little swat on the hand when they went for it a second time.
I actually have produced happier children because they learned that no means no. The problem with most parents is that no does not always mean no which does provoke children to anger. You may not like my methods, but you would love my obedient, cheerful, full of life children.
I have wanted to introduce you to them because I think you will find it very helpful and thought provoking. You are correct in your guess that this is a baseless charge. Micheal Pearl acknowledges he sins, he just says he doesn't need to because he has been freed from the power of sin by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is merely teaching what the Bible says: "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."Heavenly Pilgrim said:
HP: Knowing you feel so strongly makes me want to read their book.:thumbs: Anytime I hear others throwing stones with words such as ‘sinless perfection’ it always peeks my interest, knowing almost always it is a false charge with no validity to it. Of course it also depends on what one means by ‘sinless perfection.’
Your condemnation may in fact attest to the truthfulness of it. I will try and get a copy of it to read.
I would challenge anybody to listen to "Sin no More", a series of messages available at
http://shop.nogreaterjoy.org/product_info.php/products_id/151
Too many people put the tag "sinless perfectionism" on anybody that does not go along with the standard teaching: "all we can do is sin". If that were the case I doubt Paul would have been able to say to the Pharisees "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ". The body of Christ is a poor witness to a lost world because of the false teaching that Christians are still under the power of sin.
"our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."
Thank you Jesus!
I had a Catholic friend of mine ask Paul for me and he said sarx should have been translated "flesh". :smilewinkgrin:annsni said:I don't know. Ask Paul
Sometimes vomiting is good for us and gets rid of something that is bad. :thumbs:annsni said:
Wrong again.annsni said:
What is so bad about training and testing our children to body. He is just giving very practical ways to train children. You are reading way too much into this. He is not placing any spiritual implications on this.annsni said:
He admits that he still sins. He just knows that he doesn't need to. He doesn't use the excuse that most people teach that we are still in bondage to sin and can do nothing but sin. I think that is what bothers people the most about him: he takes away their excuse for sinning.annsni said:
Hasn't damaged mine because I know what he is talking about. You are just overreacting to your misunderstanding of what he is teaching.annsni said:
I can see that.annsni said:
trustitl said:
Funny
Good - you agree that they're bad.
Oh, trust me. It's true.
Well, the fact that he accuses God of tempting His children is against what Scripture teaches us and is completely against what God is. He of COURSE puts spiritual implications on this. I think my quotes say plenty.
"I have been preaching and living this gospel of sanctification for many years."
Oh no. I read Michael Pearl's book on the recommendation of a friend. I read it without knowing anything about him and immediately found his teaching extremely in error. I then began to study Michael and Debi Pearl and their ministry and have since then spoken against them and their ministry for years. They are damaging. Trust me. I know of families that have been damaged by them - personally know families who have been so negatively affected by them that they are now in counseling..
In what way? God tempted Abraham.annsni said:
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am." Gen. 22:1
And since we are on the "valid versio" thread:
Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." NASB
I test my children all the time. Why do you think it is so bad to train your children by setting up situations to teach them?
My experience has been mixed. Some families have greatly benefited from them. I will admit that some people take bits and pieces of what they teach and go astray. However, I don't blame the teacher for that because some have done that with Jesus' teaching as well.annsni said:
What do you find so wrong with what they teach beside setting up training situations for children.
trustitl said:
Ohh!! OK - I get it! The KJV contradicts itself in this case! Gotcha! God CANNOT tempt - it says so in Scripture.
So what does James 1:13 mean?
Even those who followed the man in the Mormon cult had some "success". But I'd like to see these kids long-term.
Tempting then punishing your children for something that you set them up to do. How about setting our children up for success rather than failure?
Other issues I have with this book and his instruction:
Spanking infants as young as 5 months old on the bare legs (page 9)
Pulling a nursing infant's hair when he bites. (page 7)
Spank a child until they're cheerful. (page 47)
Spanking an infant if they cry at nap/bedtime. (page 63) Page 64 has a story of a mama following this instruction for the first time by spanking her 12 month old when she was cranky and mom decided she needed a nap. She put baby down in the crib and naturally baby cried. So she spanked the baby as per the Pearls.
Spanking other people's children is ok. (Page 68)
Coaxing a baby to touch a hot fire but holding them off until the fire is hot enough to REALLY hurt. (page 69)
Pushing a child into the water when they wouldn't fall in to teach them a lesson. (page 70)
When a young child (3 years old) soiled himself instead of going on the potty, take him outside in the autumn cold and hose him off rather than cleaning him off properly. (page 75)
I can keep on going but there's other things I need to do around here. This is just from me sitting here with the book and thumbing through it - not really even reading it in depth. Don't worry, I HAVE read it in depth - well over 10 times in my study of it. I also make sure I have a copy of this book (as well as the Created to be His Helpmeet) so I am sure I am reading the quotes in context.
Rippon said:
GE:
You have made an extremely important point! This now is a factor not to ignore or misreckon. I have posted on it - can't remeber exactly where - but often!
There is nor has been a single translation into any language of the globe since Tyndale's, that has not been influenced by it or the AV. Every person involved in the translation of the Bible ever, has been in some way aquainted and even well versed with it. Before anyone opened a dictionary or reference work on the Greek language (or Hebrew) he had had already made his intellectual referencing to the AV, consciously or unconsciously. There is no one of these people who could have helped to. THE FEW HONEST of them admittedly did, and will have done so on purpose, and then only would go to other sources to only confirm - or very rarely - to negate their findings reached through reference to the AV. If there had been any super-humans among them, they perhaps would have exclusively made their translations without the help or hindrance of the AV.
EdSutton said:I haue beene shewed and herde many thynges this daye, but "this one takes the cake."
Doeth myne eares deceiue me? Doest thou daily speaketh (and spelleth) as dyddestt a citesyn of "England" 400-500 yeares whereupon preuentest this tyme, in thine dayly doings and walke? Or, peraduenture yee perceiued (or demed) these folisshe questions as too 'laden', 'simple' or 'silly'?
Of course you don't speak or write in this manner, although FTR, every word in my response, prior to this sentence (excepting the words in quotations marks) is from either Tyndale's NT, Coverdale's, Bishop's, Geneva or the KJV 1611 spelling, all of which were done in the 16th and early 17th centuries, which makes my usage of such entirely "Modern English." (Language Cop says the syntax and grammar that I have used here, are also correct, as well!)
While I might find this an enjoyable intellectual exercise, what would be the point, as to the question asked by steaver in the thread? I am fully aware of some of the reasons one might prefer another version, over that of the KJV. The dated language would be one of the best reasons I can think of for not using the KJV, but that is not to say that 'the KJV translators' often chose any wrong word, in this, per se, at that time.
However, I do believe they chose some few, incorrectly, the most obvious being "Easter", following Tyndale and Rogers in place of "Passover," in Acts 12:4. The Geneva had this one right for 25 years, and Wycliffe had it right with "Pask" for two centuries prior to this, for the reference is not to any Druid or other pagan feast day, at all.
Your repect or lack of the same for me, will obviously remain your decision.
I do assure you, I have never laid any claim to being an intellectual.
And I am very seldom accused of being one, either.
Ed
GE:
I really and unresevedly enjoyed this post of yours! 'M going to copy an paste it, i like it so much. It's good thing to read BB.
antiaging said:
GE:
I once asked from these 'comic'-people an explanation about a statement in one of their comics on Augustine. They returned my letter, apologising for something they 'could not explain'. I just wonder if they ever rectified their false accusation against Augustine or apologised for it publicly.
removed before the night was over
Ed Edwards:
"Tee hee - you have painted yourself into a corner.
The scripture you had talks about the Jewish form of death: stoning. A person was killed & then put on a tree as a Sign of their evil. The person was killed first, posted on a tree and had to be removed before the night was over. Jesus was put on the tree and then killed - whole different thing. Anyway, the Jesus was put on the tree, killed, and taken off the tree AND buried all in the same 12-hour day. I doubt it was Friday - Wednesday sounds more likely:
3 nights and 3 days in the belly of the earth:
Thursday night half, Thursday day half - day 1
Friday night half, Friday day half - day 2
Saturday night half, Saturday day half - day 3
Jesus was Resurrected as the Sabbath day ended: 72 hours after being buried.
And I don't listen to anybody about which day of the Week I worship the Lord upon."
GE:
"Whole different thing" - it's not only Ed Edwards who could see.
Question here is, Whose favourite 'text' is this to 'prove' their case?
Let GE tell everyone, it's not mine, but maybe that of most of everyone else.
It is the Sunday-resurrection takers for granted whose 'text' this is to 'prove', quote : "Jesus was put on the tree, killed, and taken off the tree AND buried all in the same 12-hour day." When it suits, handy to claim; when it doesn't, make the sot of the questioner. Or better, manipulate the wording.
Ed Edwards:
"Tee hee - you have painted yourself into a corner.
The scripture you had talks about the Jewish form of death: stoning. A person was killed & then put on a tree as a Sign of their evil. The person was killed first, posted on a tree and had to be removed before the night was over. Jesus was put on the tree and then killed - whole different thing. Anyway, the Jesus was put on the tree, killed, and taken off the tree AND buried all in the same 12-hour day. I doubt it was Friday - Wednesday sounds more likely:
3 nights and 3 days in the belly of the earth:
Thursday night half, Thursday day half - day 1
Friday night half, Friday day half - day 2
Saturday night half, Saturday day half - day 3
Jesus was Resurrected as the Sabbath day ended: 72 hours after being buried.
And I don't listen to anybody about which day of the Week I worship the Lord upon."
GE:
"Whole different thing" - it's not only Ed Edwards who could see.
Question here is, Whose favourite 'text' is this to 'prove' their case?
Let GE tell everyone, it's not mine, but maybe that of most of everyone else.
It is the Sunday-resurrection takers for granted whose 'text' this is to 'prove', quote : "Jesus was put on the tree, killed, and taken off the tree AND buried all in the same 12-hour day." When it suits, handy to claim; when it doesn't, make the sot of the questioner. Or better, manipulate the wording.
Ed Edwards:
"Jesus was Resurrected as the Sabbath day ended: 72 hours after being buried."
GE:
Just one question, sir, Scripture? I have no idea how many times I have read the Gospels round about the events of the crucifixion and resurrection; have not read once "72 hours"; have not read once, "after being buried", "72 hours".
Dear Ed Edwards, I thought your 'eschatology' was your worst forte. Now I notice, it's your reading of the Scriptures.
"Jesus was Resurrected as the Sabbath day ended: 72 hours after being buried."
GE:
Just one question, sir, Scripture? I have no idea how many times I have read the Gospels round about the events of the crucifixion and resurrection; have not read once "72 hours"; have not read once, "after being buried", "72 hours".
Dear Ed Edwards, I thought your 'eschatology' was your worst forte. Now I notice, it's your reading of the Scriptures.
- Status