"valid" versions

[EdSutton]

We are now on page 7 and this will be post #62.

I predict this thread is unlikely to last for another 7 pages reaching post #132, and is almost certain to never reach page 20 at post #192.

Let's see if I can be made to appear as "a false prophet", here.

Ed

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ED: We are now on page 7 and this will be post #62.

I predict this thread is unlikely to last for another 7 pages reaching post #132, and is almost certain to never reach page 20 at post #192.

Let's see if I can be made to appear as "a false prophet", here.

HP: Realizing that you do not even know what the # of the post is, I have little confidence in your prophet of doom prediction. :laugh:

 

[Ed Edwards]

// Amazing! Simply amazing! Any ideas as to why Ed? //

I cannot explain your mal-logic. You start with untrue ideas and proceed to the inane.

// What is amazing to me is that God waited so long to preserve His Word. According to some, or at least it might appear, God obscured and held from the view of Godly men for over 1800 years the best and most accurate text, preserving it in the waste basket of the convent of St. Cathrine, only to be discovered by a lone German critic! //

'According to some' (I know of NOBODY that thinks anything close to that). Feel free to quit running down 'eds' and provide somebody that says that stuff.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ed: I cannot explain your mal-logic. You start with untrue ideas and proceed to the inane.

HP: What ideas do you feel are untrue?

// HP: What is amazing to me is that God waited so long to preserve His Word. According to some, or at least it might appear, God obscured and held from the view of Godly men for over 1800 years the best and most accurate text, preserving it in the waste basket of the convent of St. Cathrine, only to be discovered by a lone German critic! //

ED: 'According to some' (I know of NOBODY that thinks anything close to that). Feel free to quit running down 'eds' and provide somebody that says that stuff.

HP: I never run down any ‘eds.’ I simply stated some observations that I felt were relevant to the title of the thread and asked you what you think. Don’t take it personal because I directed my questions to you. Did I state in any way how you felt personally or make a direct comment to how I thought you felt, other than the error as to what post # you were on? I certainly do not recall making any such personal observations as to what you do or do not believe.

 

[antiaging]

HP: If I would have offered such a remark, I would have most likely been met with a ‘bordering on blasphemy’ comment.


What is amazing to me is that God waited so long to preserve His Word. According to some, or at least it might appear, God obscured and held from the view of Godly men for over 1800 years the best and most accurate text, preserving it in the waste basket of the convent of St. Cathrine, only to be discovered by a lone German critic!

Then to think that God’s Word, that had stood the test for hundreds of years, would be remolded and patterned after this lost and obscure text, that up until that time the survival of that text was most likely due to the faithful neglect of godly men who saw obvious reasons to allow it to remain in obscurity to the point of its final (or at least they thought it was final) resting place in the waste basket, only to be saved from that doom by that German critic.

Amazing! Simply amazing! Any ideas as to why Ed?

Partial List of Corrupt New Versions
AMP Amplified Version ASV American Standard Version CEV Contemporary English Version KJ21 21st Century King James Version NAB New American Bible (RC) NASB New American Standard Bible NCV New Century Version NIV New International Version NIVI New International Version Inclusive NKJV New King James Version NLT New Living Translation (The Book) NRSV New Revised Standard Version RSV Revised Standard Version RV Revised Version TEV Today's English Version (Good News For Modern Man)

The manuscripts from which the textus receptus was taken are the majority of the Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. The King James was translated from these manuscripts. There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences between the King James and the modern versions. The textus receptus, King James, does not include the vaticanus and sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandrian Egypt; these are the corrupted manuscripts in question. Manuscripts from which the modern versions are translated includes the textus receptus plus the vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. The catholic bibles also use corrupted manuscripts from Alexandria mixed in with the Latin vulgate, and use the apocrypha which are fiction stories. The modern versions had to use the textus receptus since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that when the textus receptus disagreed with the vaticanus or sainaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the textus receptus. That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Where the textus receptus and the vaticanus and sinaiticus do not agree, it is because Marcion, 120 - 160 AD or Origin 184 - 254 AD [or whoever] corrupted those two manuscripts. (The vaticanus and sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.)
The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down through the centuries by true Bible believing Christians. In 1516 Erasmus compiled and printed the Greek (textus receptus) the received text, from these manuscripts. This is the text that the protestants of the reformation knew to be the Word of God, from which the King James Bible was translated.

John Burgon, who spent years studying the texts wrote:
Sinaiticus is extremely unreliable. On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or whole sentences are frequently written twice over or begun and immediately cancelled. A whole clause omitted, because it happens to end in the words of the clause preceeding happens 115 times in the New Testament.
The above is excerpts from the book:
Lets Weigh the Evidence: Which Bible is the Real Word of God? By Barry Burton.

The Living bible is not even a translation; it's a paraphrase. The guy that did the original living bible lost his voice. Psychologists determined that it was a psycho-somatic illness brought on because he really believed he had corrupted the Word of God.

 

[antiaging]

This is patently untrue. The gnostics had nothing to do with this. The gnostics had their own writings and not only did they deny the Trinity but they denied that Jesus came in the flesh. So why didn't they take out everything in the bible about Jesus incarnating as man? That is one of the major things they disagreed with! Why didn't they remove the line in 1 John 4 that he who confesses that Jesus came in the flesh is from God? They would have definitely removed that!

The earliest manuscripts, from which the the modern versions are translated from, do not have these words (remember, the original manuscripts do not have any verses - verses were added later). The later ms, from which the KJV was translated from, do have these words which some believe were added. It's more likely that the earlier ms are correct since it's more likely for scribes to add things in (sometimes from the margins) in the later ms than to leave things out.

Well, I got on Google and researched 1 John 5:7 and there was a website that said:
It is in the italic version of the Waldenses dating to AD 157.
The apostle John wrote it, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Note: John is the only one that calls Jesus the Word of God.
He does it in the first chapter of the gospel of John, and in Revelation, where He says that the name of Jesus is the Word of God.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

That is John who wrote that.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Does anyone have the time required to point out all of the erroneous statements in the previous 2 posts?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

A valid version is one which follows its sources closely. (The validity of the sources is another argument, one which has been going on for generations.)

Please don't believe those like Salamander when they say the KJV is the only valid English version out there. That whole idea is MAN-MADE, & not found in the KJV itself.

Again, the answer to your question...ANY VALID VERSION. No one can prove any differently.

GE:
I am not a 'KJVO-iest'.
But I see it is a common thing 'KJV-ists' are labelled 'KJVO-iests'. Without warrant! To prefer the KJB does not mean one accepts only the KJB.
What about all the other languages? I hold, that it applies to all other languages today, that virtually every one is in actual fact more of a translation of the KJB than is so often FALSELY claimed, "from the original"! I believe Tyndale's translation was a major help to even Martin Luther when he made his translation of the Texts which Erasmus brought together. Where Luther differed with Tyndale, it can be seen. The first Afrikaans translation 1933 also reveals such direct dependance on the AV, and also, shows where the translators differed with the AV. To mention but one example. Another good example would be Moffat's Tswana translation (the first translation in an African language) which he made purely from the AV, and only at the very last, called in some help with some instances where he needed knowledge of the Greek.
The claim "from the original" must be accepted the later the more cautiously!
I maintain most modern 'translations' and 'versions' are quasi-translations. Their editors not nearly mastered the original languages like the earlier translation pioneers did. Actually, they compare enthusiastic and prejudiced. Their mutual and main aim seems to 'demote' Christ of His Divinity. That cannot be denied by any who at all has made a study of the THOUSANDS of CHANGES made to the KJV.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Antiaging alleges:
"The King James was translated from these manuscripts. There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences between the King James and the modern versions."

GE:
To differentiate between the 'manuscripts' is quite another thing than to differentiate between later translations and the KJV. If it may be true there is only 5% differences between "5309 surviving Greek manuscripts", it does not "account for" only 5% "differences between the King James and the modern versions"!

 

[Rippon]

It is in the italic version of the Waldenses dating to AD 157.

The Waldensians originated in the 12th century.

 

[EdSutton]

Does anyone have the time required to point out all of the erroneous statements in the previous 2 posts?

Nope! I have too much hay still to bale.

(Don't know about anyone else.)

Ed

 

[rbell]

Does anyone have the time required to point out all of the erroneous statements in the previous 2 posts?

I do, but since its author thinks that his TV is being monitored from the inside, I don't much see the point.

I don't appreciate him calling the word of God "corrupt," though.

 

[EdSutton]

I will point out that C4K has stated that he prefers the KJV; Ed Edwards has quoted from both the 1611 KJV (as opposed to the 1769 KJV) and also the Geneva Bible at least twice as often as anyone else I have seen on this Board in the almost three years I have been here, and I used a single copy of the KJV for more that 25 years, until it was apparently taken from my cab one night over 12 years ago, and has not been seen since. I would have replaced it with the exact same edition, but it was not to be had then, at any price, from any place. I haven't tried recently to get one from a used book source, but will probably do so shortly, once again.

This is hardly opposition to the KJV by any of these three individuals.

I can and will speak concerning no others, from any point of view.

Ed.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Does anyone have the time required to point out all of the erroneous statements in the previous 2 posts?

Yes, I have time and am called to such a ministry on BB = Baptist Board.

However, I write my own material most of the time. I am NOT a professional writer but an amateur writer. So it kind of irks me to go against professional writers who earn a living. But fortunately God has lead me through some life experiences which enable me to be 'independently wealthy'. I use the phrase 'independently wealthy' to mean I have a retirement living. So I'll be around to 'debate' my point:

All VALID English Language Bibles contain and are the Inerrant and Perfect Written Word of God preserved by Divine Appointment for the generation in which they are translated. (This does not preclude other Bibles written in other Languages - which languages I can't read very good).

I post at the BIBLE VERSIONS FORUM of FFF = Fighting Fundamentals Forum at:

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=30

(Caveat: the FFF is more fighting than fundamental - caution should be taken for your children who aren't senior citizens yet :laugh: )

There the discussion is NO HOLDS BARRED. Here there are certain holds barred. The holds prohibited are specified in the Baptist Only VERSION/TRANSLATION forum. Those are the rules we shall use here. I'll have to rewrite some of my arguments, from NO HOLDS BARRED English to 'Holds Barred' English.

Those rules are found here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2393

BTW, being an 'all religions' section of a BAPTIST BOARD (BB) means I won't despair on other religions nor call the holders of such religions bad names. I suggest the same is true of non-Baptists who can get kicked out for being naughty to Baptists.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Hit a wrong button - oops

 

[Ed Edwards]

Yes, I have time and am called to such a ministry on BB = Baptist Board.

However, I write my own material most of the time. I am NOT a professional writer but an amateur writer. So it kind of irks me to go against professional writers who earn a living. But fortunately God has lead me through some life experiences which enable me to be 'independently wealthy'. I use the phrase 'independently wealthy' to mean I have a retirement living. So I'll be around to 'debate' my point:

All VALID English Language Bibles
Collectively and Individually
contain and are
the Inerrant and Perfect
Written Word of God
preserved by Divine Appointment
for the generation in which they are translated.
​

(This does not preclude other Bibles written in other Languages - which languages I can't read very good).

I post at the BIBLE VERSIONS FORUM of FFF = Fighting Fundamentals Forum at:

http://www.fundamentalforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=30

(Caveat: the FFF is more fighting than fundamental - caution should be taken for your children who aren't senior citizens yet :laugh: )

There the discussion is NO HOLDS BARRED. Here there are certain holds barred. The holds prohibited are specified in the Baptist Only VERSION/TRANSLATION forum. Those are the rules we shall use here. I'll have to rewrite some of my arguments, from NO HOLDS BARRED English to 'Holds Barred' English.

Those rules are found here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=2393

BTW, being an 'all religions' section of a BAPTIST BOARD (BB) means I won't despair on other religions nor call the holders of such religions bad names. I suggest the same is true of non-Baptists who can get kicked out for being naughty to Baptists

 

[Ed Edwards]

The following is NOT a direct quote. It has been reformatted by Ed Edwards for readability:

Partial List of Corrupt New Versions

AMP Amplified Version
ASV American Standard Version
CEV Contemporary English Version
KJ21 21st Century King James Version
NAB New American Bible (RC)
NASB New American Standard Bible
NCV New Century Version
NIV New International Version
NIVI New International Version Inclusive
NKJV New King James Version
NLT New Living Translation (The Book)
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
RSV Revised Standard Version
RV Revised Version
TEV Today's English Version
(Good News For Modern Man)

The nKJV was designed to KJVO's specifications (this wasn't history to me, this was news as it happened). Yet they reneged upon their promise, for strict KJVOs cannot abide any new translation.

the KJ21 is an update of the KJV. Here is the book details: The 21st Century King James Version (Deuel Enterprises, 1994)

The book cover says:

// The KJ21 is not a new translation or a revision, but an updating of the King James Version (KJV) ... //

once again, the strict KJVOs cannot abide any new update. But the strict KJVO speaks out of both sides of their mouth at the same time. Already made changes (punctuation, formatting, spelling) of the KJV are 'mere editions' but any such future changes in the KJV are 'versions'.

4 years later the same agency came out with Third Millennium Bible (TMB) (Holy Bible) New Authorized Version (NAV) (Deuel Enterprises, 1998). This NAV like the first AV (KJV1611 Edition) contains the Apocrypha (or Deuterocanonical Books). This NAV, like the first AV is undoubtedly authorized by God Himself!

The CODEX SINAITICUS

... This manuscript is shorter than the text used in translating the Authorized Version by almost three thousand words. ...

BTW, this forward seems more well thought than most KJVO writers and would make a much better source supporting pro-KJVO arguments than are usually used. But, alas, to many KJVO arguments are from people who distain scholarship save in the Church of England (CoE) translators who translated the KJV. But, I guess KJVOs shouldn't read off brand Bibles???

Here from the paper cover: "The complete Authorized Version of 1611 updated".


Romans 10:9-10 (KJV1611 Edition)
That if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth
the Lord Iesus, and shalt beleeue
in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saued.
10 For with the heart man beleeueth vnto righteousnesse,
and with the mouth confession is made vnto saluation.


Romans 10:9-10 (KJV, Crosswalk.com Edition)

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth
the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe
in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved
10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. ​

Romans 10:9-10 (TMB, 1998)
that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth
the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe
in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead,
thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness,
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Note that the differences from KJV1611 Edition to the commonly used current edition of the KJV is much more than from the commonly used current edition of the KJV to the TMB = Third Millennium Bible.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

ED: once again, the strict KJVOs cannot abide any new update. But the strict KJVO speaks out of both sides of their mouth at the same time. Already made changes (punctuation, formatting, spelling) of the KJV are 'mere editions' but any such future changes in the KJV are 'versions'.

HP: I for one have a hard time believing that the NKJV is not 'in some ways' a new translation. I can remember when it first came out a ‘very’ well known fundamentalist Baptist preacher and college founder I believe, stated on the radio promoting it, that it was “pre-millenial.” That gave me a clue, right or wrong, that something had been altered in order to better line up with the ‘pre-millennial view point. I never took the time to search it verse by verse to find out what he was talking about, I simply believed him that it was a doctored attempt to tinker, yet once again, with the Word of God.

Ed: 4 years later the same agency came out with Third Millennium Bible (TMB) (Holy Bible) New Authorized Version (NAV) (Deuel Enterprises, 1998). This NAV like the first AV (KJV1611 Edition) contains the Apocrypha (or Deuterocanonical Books). This NAV, like the first AV is undoubtedly authorized by God Himself!

HP: Would Almighty God give unto man His words in a package that has a ‘copy write’ agreement attached to it? I personally do not believe that He would.

ED: BTW, this forward seems more well thought than most KJVO writers and would make a much better source supporting pro-KJVO arguments than are usually used. But, alas, to many KJVO arguments are from people who distain scholarship save in the Church of England (CoE) translators who translated the KJV. But, I guess KJVOs shouldn't read off brand Bibles???

HP: Would Almighty God give unto man His words in a package that has a ‘copy write’ agreement attached to it? I personally do not believe that He would.

I believe the KJV beats all other versions hands down is the scholarship of those compiled to complete the KJV. I personally believe it would be all but impossible if not impossible to assemble such a group of men with like qualifications today or at any time during the time duration the modern translations have been written.

ED: All VALID English Language Bibles

​

Collectively and Individually


contain and are



​

​

​

the Inerrant and Perfect​

Written Word of God​

preserved by Divine Appointment
​

​

​

for the generation in which they are translated.​

[/QUOTE]​

​

​

​

​

​

​

HP: That certainly takes faith to believe. With the numerous omissions and changes that have been made in the modern versions, are we now to believe that after 1800 years that God decided to re-word some things and to omit other things that He once said, and that all are “the Inerrant and Perfect written Word of God preserved by Divine Appointment?”

Reason would indicate to me that either some are indeed right and others wrong and as such are imposters of the truth to one degree or another. Let everyone be assured in their own mind. They all cannot be the Word of God if in fact there are glaring inconsistencies, omissions, and changes to words nowhere substantiated in any of the manuscripts, between them.

 

[annsni]

The "copyright" is an artificial thing that has nothing to do with the "Word of God". The KJV actually has what is called "Cum Privilegio. The KJV technically belongs to the English crown. For the first hundred years, the KJV could not be printed by anyone but the royal printer. Like a British copyright.

 

[annsni]

I personally believe it would be all but impossible if not impossible to assemble such a group of men with like qualifications today or at any time during the time duration the modern translations have been written.

You doubt God's ability?

Luke 1:37 "For with God nothing shall be impossible."

[Are you implying God's Word is untrue?]