"valid" versions

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

KJV Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

NIV: 34Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

HP: Now here is an interesting passage that is changed in a significant way from it's meaning from the KJV based upon the Majority text.

In the KJV, note that the reference in verse 35 was to a specific Man, i.e., the Man Christ Jesus. It is denoted by the direct object, ‘the Son.’ In the NIV the direct object ‘the Son’ is changed to an indirect object ‘a son.’ Note the capitalization change from being capitalized, clearly denoting the ‘Son of God, Jesus Christ,’ to simply be ‘a son,’ with the failure to capitalize ‘son’ indicating it is referencing any man, not simply Christ.

One would be hard pressed trying to prove that such changes have not been unduly influenced by the direct implications and influence of certain doctrinal beliefs.

By the way as a side note, I thought we have been told that the believer remains a sinner, which this passage tells us that if one does, he is a servant of sin and as such will NOT remain in the house forever as a family member, does it not?

 

[Ed Edwards]

HP: Then prove it Ed. Give us your story as to where and how Westcott happened across this manuscript.

I don't know about how Westcott happened across the Codex Sinaiticus. However, I have heard a story of how the Lord Preserved the Word of God for our time by hiding Codex Sinaiticus in a Monastery on Mt. Sinai. A Constantin von Tishendorf found the Codex Sinaiticus in a basket. The basket was used to hold firepaper for stoking the fires in the Monastery.

See page 32, THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY (Bethany House, 1995) by James R. White.

I can't give you pointers to other good sources. I'm having a problem getting a FREE copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader. If Adobe can't give me a free reader, I'm going to tell everybody that Adobe ACROBAT is a phony. I'm a retilred 30 year professional programmer of !BM compatable computers - I really think Adobe's site should help me get my free Reader instead the Adobe site is a BARRIER to me getting my free reader. bye-bye .pdf

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holman_Christian_Standard_Bible

Holman Bible Publishers assembled an international, interdenominational team of 100 scholars and proofreaders, all of whom were committed to biblical inerrancy.[3] The translation committee sought to STRIKE A BALANCE (EM) between the two prevailing philosophies of Bible translation: formal equivalence (literal, "word-for-word", etc), found in translations like the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version, and dynamic or functional equivalence ("thought-for-thought"), found in translations like the New International Version and the New Living Translation. The translators call this balance Optimal Equivalence.
According to the translators, the primary goal of optimal equivalence translations is "to convey a sense of the original text with as much clarity as possible". To that end, the ancient source texts were exhaustively scrutinized at every level (word, phrase, clause, sentence, discourse) to determine its “ORIGINAL MEANING and INTENTION. (EM) Afterwards, using the best language tools available, the semantic and linguistic equivalents were translated into as readable a text as possible.”

HP: Interesting in light of some recent comments on the list. That should serve as living proof not only to the practice of some to lay great emphasis upon ‘thought for thought’ as opposed to ‘word for word’ (or the other way around) and the clear notion that the door was opened broad to allow ones theological bias to be substituted at will for the actual Words of God……by way of ‘original intention,’ of course.

Do you just suppose that there was some other source or bias that might have had some small influence on what one, as opposed to the other, might see as ‘original intent?’ :wavey:

 

[rbell]

Antiaging's faith is weak...because he needs miraculous evidence to prove it.

Read Hebrews 11:1.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP:
"Do you just suppose that there was some other source or bias that might have had some small influence on what one, as opposed to the other, might see as ‘original intent?’ "

GE:
What about Mk15:42 Mt27:57 as an example. The 'word for word' method results in : "When it had become evening already ..." OAV (KJV basically)
The 'thought for thought' method results in "While evening approached" (NIV), or, "Late noon ..." NAB
My question is: WHOSE 'thought' is it? The (first) writer's? Or the translators'?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Source:
http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes.html


(It is worth noting here that people like Charles Spurgeon and Dean Burgon, who were comtemporaries with Westcott and Hort and knew them personally, never made such claims against their character and beliefs, even when vocally disagreeing with some of their approaches to textual criticism. Burgon and Spurgeon never called them heretics, never questioned or challenged their Christian faith, never challenged or questioned their doctrinal statements, never accused them of involvement or of condoning of occultic or New Age practices or beliefs, etc.)

Amen, Brother -- Preach it!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GE : What about Mk15:42 Mt27:57 as an example. The 'word for word' method results in : "When it had become evening already ..."
The 'thought for thought' method results in "While evening approached", or, "Late noon ..."
My question is: WHOSE 'thought' is it? The (first) writer's? Or the translator's?

HP: Ed most likely would say, they both are inerrant and say the same thing. Ann most likely would imply or state that regardless of what they say, they all have the same doctrines or implications upon ones doctrines.

I clearly see a noticeable difference, although doctrinally I do not know the ramifications doctrinally off hand. I personally will accept the KJV for the truth. “Now when the even was come..”

If one was to memorize this passage of Scripture, which one should they memorize? As for me, give me the KJV. When one hears this verse quoted, which version should they believe? I would say the KJV but others would disagree.

Does the reader not see the confusion wrought in the hearts and minds of the reader due to the proliferation of translations and versions of the Word of God?? I certainly do, but let every one be persuaded in their own minds. We will all have our day in court.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ed: Amen, Brother -- Preach it!

HP: What about those “Baptist killing” translators of the KJV you spoke about Ed?

 

[Rippon]

Does the reader not see the confusion wrought in the hearts and minds of the reader due to the proliferation of translations and versions of the Word of God?? I certainly do, but let every one be persuaded in their own minds. We will all have our day in court.

By the words :"We will all have our day in court." -- Do you mean that we will be condemned on the Day of Judgment for our usage and approval of multiple translations of the Bible?

 

[Ed Edwards]

In post #161 by Heavenly Pilgrim it says:

// KJV Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. //

I have been called by God IAW Acts 17 to check every verse I read on-line to see if it was done right.

Act 17:10-10-11 (KJV1611 Edition):

And the brethren immediatly sent away Paul and Silas by night vnto Berea: who comming thither, went into the Synagogue of the Iewes.
11 These were more noble then those in Thessalonica, in that they receiued the word with all readinesse of minde, and searched the Scriptures dayly, whether those things were so.

John 8:34-36 (KJV1873 Edition):
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.


--Ed Edwards
The Berean

P.S. From now on please help me find the Bible you are quoting from. I have nine KJVb - all different. I'll try to figure out your post, but you got to get your quote right. I hope you don't just cut and paste scripture hoping you have a good source but check it out to make sure your source is correct :type:

 

[Ed Edwards]

HP: What about those “Baptist killing” translators of the KJV you spoke about Ed?

I'd rather read the Bible(s) than study old dusty history books that argue with each other. Besides, I don't suppose that more than ONE history book is right

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP:
"I clearly see a noticeable difference, although doctrinally I do not know the ramifications doctrinally off hand. "

GE:
Here's one text that may (or should) help make clear what 'doctrinally the ramifications' are:
KJV (Rev.Std.):
"His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day." Dt21:23a

"His body must not be permitted to remain on the tree overnight; you must bury him the same day (you hang him)." ModLan.Liv.B.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ed: I hope you don't just cut and paste scripture hoping you have a good source but check it out to make sure your source is correct

HP: Yet another great reason to have a trustworthy version like the KJV always handy that one can place their faith and trust in its veracity. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ed: I'd rather read the Bible(s) than study old dusty history books that argue with each other. Besides, I don't suppose that more than ONE history book is right

HP: Then could, or will you, retract your inflammatory and derogatory remark directed at the translators of the KJV until such a time as you feel led to study and have solid trustworthy evidence to support such accusations?

 

[Ed Edwards]

HP:
"I clearly see a noticeable difference, although doctrinally I do not know the ramifications doctrinally off hand. "

GE:
Here's one text that may (or should) help make clear what 'doctrinally the ramifications' are:
KJV (Rev.Std.):
"His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day." Dt21:23a

"His body must not be permitted to remain on the tree overnight; you must bury him the same day (you hang him)." ModLan.Liv.B.

No difference is OBVIOUS to me. day(KJV) = '24-hour-day you hang him' , day(LB) = '24-hour-day you hang him)

Which doctrine gets changed?

Nobody I've ever seen has shown me FROM THE WORDS OF A DENOMINATION how they have made a WRONG DOCTRINE from a MV - NOBODY. I've read losts of arguments of 'what could be' but none that are. BY CONTRAST, I've written a lot of paragraphs about wrong doctrines that people have they got from misunderstanding the KJV.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Here you see it with your own eyes!

Before I shall say anything about the doctrine implied, let me ask you, if you hang a man on a certain day, and remove him from the tree that certain day, has the man hung either all night, or, overnight?

 

[Ed Edwards]

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=21781
KJV Translator's Work Lost - 2003

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=29281
Beliefs of the KJV Translators - 2006

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ed: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=21781
KJV Translator's Work Lost - 2003

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=29281
Beliefs of the KJV Translators – 2006

HP: Have you checked out these sources for genuine truth, or are you simply cutting and pasting before you have examined them for their veracity? :wavey:

 

[annsni]

HP: Ed most likely would say, they both are inerrant and say the same thing. Ann most likely would imply or state that regardless of what they say, they all have the same doctrines or implications upon ones doctrines.

I clearly see a noticeable difference, although doctrinally I do not know the ramifications doctrinally off hand. I personally will accept the KJV for the truth. “Now when the even was come..”

If one was to memorize this passage of Scripture, which one should they memorize? As for me, give me the KJV. When one hears this verse quoted, which version should they believe? I would say the KJV but others would disagree.

Does the reader not see the confusion wrought in the hearts and minds of the reader due to the proliferation of translations and versions of the Word of God?? I certainly do, but let every one be persuaded in their own minds. We will all have our day in court.

Confusion? It was evening. What confusion? It's not like one says that it was morning and the other says it was evening.

MAN, talk about nitpicking (or straining for gnats - whatever you prefer).

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

This is NOT "nitpicking (or straining for gnats - whatever you prefer)." This is a straight-forward question I am asking, with a simple, obvious answer. Can you give me the answer or can't you? If you hang a man on a certain day, and remove him from the tree that certain day, has the man hung all night, or, overnight?