• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
Ed Edwards:
"OBTW (Oh, by the way) whoever said something about the Latin Bible contaminated by Westcott and Hort have no idea that the fame of both Westcott and Hort is that they used all available ancient sources for thier creation of 19th century (1801-1900) GREEK New Testaments. "

GE:
Plainly, UNTRUE! Proven untrue, by their whole enterprise NOT to use the 'texts' previously used for the translation, e.g., of the AV.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Heavenly Pilgrim said:

HP: That should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are a whole lot of new translations that are not true translations.

It should? I don't think so.

I find it amazing that since 1611, every Bible scholar and translator - every manuscript that has been found - have all been heretical and antiChrist. I do think God is a bit more powerful than that.

I have not seen ONE doctrine that is taken out of Scripture in any Bible. I have not seen the diety of Christ denied by any Bible translator or in any version of the Bible that I have used. The idea of the "conspiracy" against the Word of God is about as plausealbe as antiaging's Noah's Ark spaceship.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
Ed Edwards:
"OBTW (Oh, by the way) whoever said something about the Latin Bible contaminated by Westcott and Hort have no idea that the fame of both Westcott and Hort is that they used all available ancient sources for thier creation of 19th century (1801-1900) GREEK New Testaments. "

GE:
Plainly, UNTRUE! Proven untrue, by their whole enterprise NOT to use the 'texts' previously used for the translation, e.g., of the AV.

OK - The accusation has been made. We'd like to see undeniable proof (and from a neutral source, not one like Chick)
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
// I am still trying to understand how one ‘falls out of the grave’ , or falls away from this world right into the arms of Jesus’ at the resurrection?? //

Tee Hee - self admitted ignorance (of space).
(remember ignorance = not knowing about something, I admit I'm ignorant of knitting strokes /or do they call it 'stiches'?/ If I knew, I wouldn't be ignorant, eh?)

Wait until I tell you about the Sets Theory (Branch of Mathematics) Theorem:

Any finite number of infinite subsets can be made from any infinite set.

An infinite subset of time is called 'eternity' (or 'forever'). One can make three infinite subsets by numbering the years (1,2,3,4,5,6,7 ... ) (...) = and so on here.

1. years equally divisible by 3 - make an infinite set: 3R0 = (3,6,9,12, ... )
2. years divided by 3 with a remainder of one
make an infinite set: 3R1 = (1,4,7,10,13, ... )
3. years divided by 3 with a remainder of two
make an infinite set: 3R2 = (2,5,8,11,14, ... )

So we better like each other, for we will spend eternity alone with Jesus and alone with each of all the other Christians there. I will spend an eternity alone with my First wife. I will spend an eternity alone with my Second Wife. I will spend an eternity alone with Heavenly Pilgrim - even if I spend only 1 second each Billion years alone with HP, it will add up to an eternity alone. For if there are a finite number of people in heaven (and I think that will happen) they will have a finine number of groupings. (I hope I get in a choir of 150 Million Baptists singing all the songs in Baptist Hymnals /there is a 2008 Baptist Hymnal out now/.

Anyway, the object of the story is to be kind to your Christian Friends - you will spend an eternity alone with each of the :)
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
Antiaging:
"So why when Christians have the Word of the living God, explaining to them that all things are possible to him that believes, so few have the use of supernatural faith or even try to use it? Why so many in the secular world using faith to do the supernatural better than many Christians?"

GE:
What you refer to is not 'faith' in the Bible or Christian sense, IN THE LEAST!
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
annsni said:
OK - The accusation has been made. We'd like to see undeniable proof (and from a neutral source, not one like Chick)

GE:
Why should I supply the proof? Read them for it. Read, even Nestle's Greek NT and the editor's explanations of his apparatus.

What about the Nida-Commission and its world-wide 'conditions' forced upon every new version for publication? That it should be 'translated', by 'dynamic-equivalent' method?

Who controls the finances of all Bibles Societies with probably an exception or two - which exceptions do not print, publish or spread any of the New Age Bibles?
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:


GE:
Why should I supply the proof? Read them for it. Read, even Nestle's Greek NT and the editor's explanations of his apparatus.

What about the Nida-Commission and its world-wide 'conditions' forced upon every new version for publication? That it should be 'translated', by 'dynamic-equivalent' method?

Who controls the finances of all Bibles Societies with probably an exception or two - which exceptions do not print, publish or spread any of the New Age Bibles?


Who controlled the printing of the KJV? Yeah - an unsaved, sinful king. Your point?
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
annsni said:
It should? I don't think so.

I find it amazing that since 1611, every Bible scholar and translator - every manuscript that has been found - have all been heretical and antiChrist. I do think God is a bit more powerful than that.

I have not seen ONE doctrine that is taken out of Scripture in any Bible. I have not seen the diety of Christ denied by any Bible translator or in any version of the Bible that I have used. The idea of the "conspiracy" against the Word of God is about as plausealbe as antiaging's Noah's Ark spaceship.

GE:
Does HP hold this view?
Not since 1611 - in my opinion - but since Bible Societies where before anatamised by the Roman Catholic Church, became their most effective medium of propaganda for Roman Catolic heresy-- twentieth century developments!
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
HP: // Are you saying that I am ignorant? //

Yes I am saying that you are ignorant of several subjects as noted above.
I am not saying you are stupid.
I am NOT saying you are a fool. (The Bible cautions against that)

I also suggest you, HP, are ignorant of these terms (that I why you need to figure them out and why I keep trying to tell you).

// (all subjects in general) //
ignorant = does not know (a particular subject)
stupid = can not know (all subjects in general)
fool = can't figure out how to use what they know (all subjects in general)

Open note to the PTB here:
I've gotten in trouble before saying someone is ignorant on BB. Note I've even said I was ignorant of a specific subject. I hope now the PTBs are not ignorant of these three terms: 'ignorant', 'stupid', and 'fool'. 'Stupid' is against BB rules, 'Fool' is against God's Rules, but 'ignorant' ain't against nobody's rules save those ignorant about these three terms:


This meaning of ignorant has no negative connotations (save what the reader may put on them. I'll use a better word, if you can come up with it).
'stupid' has negative connotations, one should not use it on BB;
'fool' has negative connotations, one should not use it on BB.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
The only way I could see this issue resolved for any individual Christian is for him to read his KJV and versions like the NIV and NASB , phrase for phrase in turn; even word for word. ONLY thus will he be able to see for himself. Emotional debating is useless.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
The only way I could see this issue resolved for any individual Christian is for him to read his KJV and versions like the NIV and NASB , phrase for phrase in turn; even word for word. ONLY thus will he be able to see for himself. Emotional debating is useless.

Have done this for years. I used to do this even as a child to see the differences. I've never found anything significant - nothing that changes any doctrine in Scripture.
 
Ann: I find it amazing that since 1611, every Bible scholar and translator - every manuscript that has been found - have all been heretical and antiChrist. I do think God is a bit more powerful than that.

HP: That’s it Ann. Overstate the case against them as you have done here. It serves the great purpose of trying to make any and all that believe that there are corrupted texts in circulation, and that any and all that oppose the use of them, believe something no one to my knowledge has stated. I would call that a flat out misrepresentation of the facts Ann. Now when others, in your estimation, or that of DHK or Steaver, believe that others misrepresent their sentiments,…….. what is that three letter word I so often here used? I almost forgot that other word that has been used so often in the past to descibe such misrepresentations, i.e., ‘slander.’

Ann: I have not seen ONE doctrine that is taken out of Scripture in any Bible. I have not seen the diety of Christ denied by any Bible translator or in any version of the Bible that I have used. The idea of the "conspiracy" against the Word of God is about as plausealbe as antiaging's Noah's Ark spaceship.

HP: Often the changes are subtle Ann, just like the passage in 2Thes Ed and I have been discussing. It can be a seemingly minor change, but it often can allow for ideas to enter into the mind that are patently false, such as the notion that a falling away could depict the rapture of the church as Ed has stated it does. I know full well that such a change was made antecedent to the WH text, and was in fact evidently set forth in the Geneva Bible, but it serves to illustrate how subtle the change might be, yet with disasterous consequences to the truth of scripture.

Take Psalms 51: 5 for instance, where the writer speaks directly to the sin of his mother in that particular verse, yet the translators took it upon themselves to add to the text with words never implied or uttered by the writer, i.e., “sinner from birth.” That is about as clear of an abuse of interpreting Scripture as can be imagined.

Words can be changed from flesh to ‘sinful nature’ as in Romans 7. That is not a mere change that is without doctrinal interpretational bias.


One of the most apparent notions that the proliferation of versions have brought about, is the notion that the reader is left with in reading the many footnotes such as stating this or that is not found in the ‘oldest’ or best manuscripts. Left to those that have not thought through that false implications that such comments imply, it leaves the reader, at best, in doubt as to just what does the real Word of God say or not say. I cannot think of many things that could undermine the authority of God’s Word than such thoughts interjected in Scripture.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
Gerhard Ebersoehn said:
The only way I could see this issue resolved for any individual Christian is for him to read his KJV and versions like the NIV and NASB , phrase for phrase in turn; even word for word. ONLY thus will he be able to see for himself. Emotional debating is useless.

Amen, Brother Gerhard Ebersoehn -- Preach it! :thumbs:

I do exactly as you recommend, reading daily (since about 1976) the KJV and NIV

The Bible I read NOW (for the past 8 years) everyday and take to church is TODAY'S PARALLEL BIBLE (Zondervan, 2000)). It has side-by-side on the page: the KJV1873 Edition and the NIV. The KJV1873 includes the Translator notes, so does the NIV. They are both VALID versions. Then NIV includes the same sources as the KJV: LXX (greek OT), Samaritan Pentateuch, ancient scribal traditions, Latin Vulgate (OT), and Masoretic Text (Hebrew OT).
The New Testament Greek (NT), Latin Vulgate (NT) are used for the New Testament. Additonally the NIV takes advantage of the VALID Greek translations of Westcott and Hort as well as some of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The TODAY'S PARALLEL BIBLE includes also the NASB, 1995 revision and the NLT. But every day I read my NIV and KJV together.
 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
I have spent my available time for it over half a century on factual research on a specific 'subject' which I never could have dreamt was the direct result of twentieth century 'translations' of the Bible, the earliest one of which was the 'Ou Afrikaanse Vertaling' of 1933. In fact the very first impetus to my studies was given by the NIV and the 'Nuwe Afrikaanse Bybel' of 1983. For no moment did I know the cause for my concern lay with a universal onslaught against the 'orthodoxy' of the accepted Bible Translations (plural - not only against the KJV!). I have given account on this one aspect and speak for myself, and am not able to account for the findings of other researchers. But I have independently gathered enough evidence to know not without good reason to dismiss similar evidence reached by others on other aspects of the same issue on new translaions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
// One of the most apparent notions that the proliferation of versions have brought about, is the notion that the reader is left with in reading the many footnotes such as stating this or that is not found in the ‘oldest’ or best manuscripts. Left to those that have not thought through that false implications that such comments imply, it leaves the reader, at best, in doubt as to just what does the real Word of God say or not say. I cannot think of many things that could undermine the authority of God’s Word than such thoughts interjected in Scripture. //

Why are you kicking against the pricks? The Truth of Bible translations is that there are multiple conflicting sources. Check your presuppositions that lead to the one Bible theory. They won't stand the light of day.

Yet who is trying to smash my repeated presupposition: the trailer/signature block that follows every post. That theorem still stands.

This scripture proves the theorem:

2Ti 3:16-17 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition):
For the whole Scripture is giuen by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teache, to conuince, to correct, and to instruct in righteousnesse,
17 That the man of God may be absolute, being made perfect vnto all good workes.

Sorry, but the common meaning of Christians of all stripes of 'Whole Scripture' is (but is not limited to) the KJV & NIV.

(The Geneva Bible was the one the Pilgrims carried with them to North America when they founded the Mass. Colony. The Puritans boycotted the KJV.)



 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
Dear Ed Edwards,
It does not seem to me I have come to the peaceful conclusions you have, unfortunately. I REJECT these 'New Age Bibles' as FALSE, and AGAINST the Word of God, and view their translators, as fakes at best, traitors even, and at worst, false prophets from antichrist. If I'm wrong, then surely, it must be easy to show me with 'data'. The day that happens, I'll retract; not until then.
Read my views on Justin Martyr. He was the initiator of the Dynamic Equivalent method.
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
// I have given account on this one aspect and speak for myself, and am not able to account for the findings of other researchers. //

I accept your account, for how can I turn down your witness as being your witness? But by the same token, you must accept my witness:

Of the some 250 people I've read the Bible to who callled upon the Lord in saving faith - some 170 or so happened when I had the NIV in my Hand - I read the NIV to them. The second most was the nKJV (which is different from the other Modern Versions [MVs] in many significant ways). The third most was the KJV. The NIV has God's Word along with the power to Save Souls - that is my testimony.

 

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
Ed Edwards:
"The Puritans boycotted the KJV"

GE:
I have MANY works of the Puritans on my shelves; they are my best loved books BY FAR! They ALL without exception, use the KJV for ALL I KNOW!
 

Ed Edwards

<img src=/Ed.gif>
annsni said:
Have done this for years. I used to do this even as a child to see the differences. I've never found anything significant - nothing that changes any doctrine in Scripture.

Thank you for your testimony about the KJV and NIV. It is always a blessing to share with you Sister Annsni.

YBIC - Ed the HCSB toter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top