What is wrong with the modern versions?

[timothy 1769]

HankD,

Can you recommend a good english/greek interlinear of the Scrivener text? KJV in the margin would be ideal.

Regards,
Tim

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:

You just dont get it do you Bob? Your "carbon copy" brand of parroting the people who talked you out of believing the KJB is at an all time low.You KNOW that no Bible or text from Byzantine manuscrips(from the reformation)is not endorsedin any way by the RCC;in fact,they have been banned,and are still on the list of heretical readings.And you also KNOW good and well that the manuscripts the modern "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ CONFLICTING AUTHORITIES)come from did in fact contain(and still does) the Apocryphal books.


When are you going to learn that your "brand" of aping others will not shake the Bible(KJB) believers faith???? [/QB][/QUOTE]

I'm sure Dr. Bob will speak for himself, but in the meantime:

You mention the Apocrypha in a disparaging tone, while saying in so many words that the work of the AV translators was perfect. Well, try looking into a REAL AV 1611. It has the Apocrypha. It has the translators' Preface To The Reader. It has a List of Holy Days, which includes Easter, Christmas, All Saints' Day, several specific Saint's Days, and(Gasp!)THE NATIVITY OF MARY.

If you throw out the Apocrypha or say they don't belong in the KJV, then you either know more about the KJV than those who made its first edition, or you're siding with those who altered the KJV by eliminating much of the translators' work, including the marginal note for "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12-"or, O day starre".

And, may I ask, faith in WHAT? The KJV itself, which you apparently cut up where it doesn't meet the criteria of the Onlyist myth, or in the AUTHOR of all valid BVs?

Seems as if the Onlyists throw out parts of the AV/KJV itself when it doesn't suit their man-made doctrine.

 

[HankD]

HankD,

Can you recommend a good english/greek interlinear of the Scrivener text? KJV in the margin would be ideal.

Regards,
Tim

I don’t know if any exists, but the Jay Green Interlinear is sometimes said to be Scrivener's text. I don’t think it is exactly. I believe the Jay Green is the Stephanus 1550 with some Scrivener upgrades. The Jay Green text is nearly identical to the Scrivener as far as I can tell. There are only a handful of differences.

I hear tell there is a NKJV Scrivener interlinear.

Here is the Jay Green/KJV

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1878442805/absolutsearch05/103-0665369-3537466

Here is (supposedly) a down-loadable Scrivener interlinear, I have never tried it so be careful.
Don't know if there is a charge, special font requirements, etc...

http://www.ccel.org/olb/tolbss/components/translations/grkeng.html

Another site of interest: page down a bit to get to the interlinear section:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/versbib4.html

HankD

[ December 09, 2003, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[TC]

Originally posted by robycop3:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:

You just dont get it do you Bob? Your "carbon copy" brand of parroting the people who talked you out of believing the KJB is at an all time low.You KNOW that no Bible or text from Byzantine manuscrips(from the reformation)is not endorsedin any way by the RCC;in fact,they have been banned,and are still on the list of heretical readings.And you also KNOW good and well that the manuscripts the modern "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ CONFLICTING AUTHORITIES)come from did in fact contain(and still does) the Apocryphal books.


When are you going to learn that your "brand" of aping others will not shake the Bible(KJB) believers faith???? </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sure Dr. Bob will speak for himself, but in the meantime:

You mention the Apocrypha in a disparaging tone, while saying in so many words that the work of the AV translators was perfect. Well, try looking into a REAL AV 1611. It has the Apocrypha. It has the translators' Preface To The Reader. It has a List of Holy Days, which includes Easter, Christmas, All Saints' Day, several specific Saint's Days, and(Gasp!)THE NATIVITY OF MARY.

If you throw out the Apocrypha or say they don't belong in the KJV, then you either know more about the KJV than those who made its first edition, or you're siding with those who altered the KJV by eliminating much of the translators' work, including the marginal note for "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12-"or, O day starre".

And, may I ask, faith in WHAT? The KJV itself, which you apparently cut up where it doesn't meet the criteria of the Onlyist myth, or in the AUTHOR of all valid BVs?

Seems as if the Onlyists throw out parts of the AV/KJV itself when it doesn't suit their man-made doctrine. [/QB][/QUOTE]


But that's OK because the KJV was going through a purification process. It became perfect in 1769.

 

[robycop3]

But that's OK because the KJV was going through a purification process. It became perfect in 1769.

________________________________________

Do ya REALLY believe this?????

If ya do, ya evidently don't believe yer own 1769 KJV. My 1769 Blayney's Edition KJV, which I assume is the same as yours, since you mention that number, says:

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

David, who lived some 2700 years before 1769, wrote those words as they appear in our KJVs. Evidently, he believed God's words pure when He spoke them. If you believe they needed purified, you must not believe what David wrote, that same David who was a man after God's own heart.

You KJVO cats are so hilarious...

 

[Dr. Bob]

A legitimate question was asked about a good interlinear. I have Interlinear Greek-English New Testament with Lexicon and Synonyms by George Ricker Berry.

Used the St Stephens 1555 Greek (almost identical to the AV1611's Greek base), with literal English in each line and KJV1769 in the margin.

Plus basic lexicon that is very comprehensive. The single BEST tool. Put out by Zondervan, about $19.95 in paperback, but I'd pay $10 more for a long-lasting hardback.

 

[ArcticBound]

Here is an interesting fact: Erasmus although a Catholic was not well-liked by the Catholics; in fact, his New Testament was put on the Catholic's "Do not Read" List.

 

[Spirit and Truth]

TT stated:

Can you recommend a good english/greek interlinear of the Scrivener text? KJV in the margin would be ideal.

S&T:

http://www.sovgracepub.com/bibles/InterlinearNT.htm

http://www.chrlitworld.com/BookSGP/internt.htm

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
Yeah,yeah..Problem is that they are "Ever learning,and never able to come to the knowledge of truth."

Amen to that!

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Anti-Alexandrian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> 3. They popularize a form of the text which has ecumenical approval and [gasp] even include the false CATHOLIC apochryphal books.

You just dont get it do you Bob? Your "carbon copy" brand of parroting the people who talked you out of believing the KJB is at an all time low.You KNOW that no Bible or text from Byzantine manuscrips(from the reformation)is not endorsedin any way by the RCC;in fact,they have been banned,and are still on the list of heretical readings.And you also KNOW good and well that the manuscripts the modern "bibles"(whichever of the 200+ CONFLICTING AUTHORITIES)come from did in fact contain(and still does) the Apocryphal books.


When are you going to learn that your "brand" of aping others will not shake the Bible(KJB) believers faith???? </font>[/QUOTE]Now that you have the perfect Bible. Tell me who's living for Jesus Christ because of your life.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by robycop3:
But that's OK because the KJV was going through a purification process. It became perfect in 1769.

________________________________________

Do ya REALLY believe this?????

If ya do, ya evidently don't believe yer own 1769 KJV. My 1769 Blayney's Edition KJV, which I assume is the same as yours, since you mention that number, says:

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

David, who lived some 2700 years before 1769, wrote those words as they appear in our KJVs. Evidently, he believed God's words pure when He spoke them. If you believe they needed purified, you must not believe what David wrote, that same David who was a man after God's own heart.

You KJVO cats are so hilarious...

No, Didn't ya see the laughing face. I was just giving a typical KJVO answer. I don't believe for a minute that God's words needs any purification.

 

[ArcticBound]

IF we don't have a Bible Today that has been preserved down through the ages without error, then what are we all doing here? If the God of the Bible can't preserve His Word which He promises to do then why put our trust in this God. He tells us that "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." "The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul." We are in a lot of trouble if we don't have a preserved Word of God that is Infallible! Of course, it all comes down to faith! We live by Faith and not by sight!

The facts can only prove so much. In my study, the facts point to the Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic Text from which we get our King James Bible. But I accept the King James Bible as the Inspired Inerrant Word of God through Preservation BY FAITH!

Obviously, the Word of God is the key issue. That is the first thing the devil attacked in the Garden of Eden ("hath God said?"). Jesus quoted the O. T. saying, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." The Devil doesn't want us to have the Word of God in our hands and he surely doesn't want us to believe it!

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by ArcticBound:
IF we don't have a Bible Today that has been preserved down through the ages without error, then what are we all doing here?

Personally, I'm using the Geneva. Why are you trying to get me to "correct" it, when the word of God was already preserved in 1605?

 

[robycop3]

You KJVO cats are so hilarious... [/qb][/QUOTE]No, Didn't ya see the laughing face. I was just giving a typical KJVO answer. I don't believe for a minute that God's words needs any purification. [/QB][/QUOTE]

My bad, for which I apologize. I hadn't read all the earlier posts, including some of yours, thoroughly.

However, there ARE some KJVOs who actually make such statements in earnest. To me, this is one of their sillier arguments, completely w/o credibility, making its advocates appear goofy to everyone else.

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by ArcticBound:
IF we don't have a Bible Today that has been preserved down through the ages without error, then what are we all doing here? If the God of the Bible can't preserve His Word which He promises to do then why put our trust in this God. He tells us that "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." "The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul." We are in a lot of trouble if we don't have a preserved Word of God that is Infallible! Of course, it all comes down to faith! We live by Faith and not by sight!

Then you should have faith that God can & will present His word as He chooses. The proof in English is the many English Bible versions that have been made since English has existed, with no two of them matching. And they've always been in the contemporary English style of its time.

The facts can only prove so much. In my study, the facts point to the Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic Text from which we get our King James Bible. But I accept the King James Bible as the Inspired Inerrant Word of God through Preservation BY FAITH!

Faith in WHAT? If it's in GOD, you should see that He's NOT limited Himself to any one version. If He had, He would've preserved the Autographs.

Obviously, the Word of God is the key issue. That is the first thing the devil attacked in the Garden of Eden ("hath God said?").

This is another skewed Onlyist argument. Quite obviously, God, Adam & Eve, & the serpent spoke the same language, and God's command was fresh in Adam's mind. The devil didn't change what God said; He said God had not been forthright when He said A&E would die if they ate the fruit. Obviously, Eve wouldn't have believed him if he'd tried to change what God had said.

Jesus quoted the O. T. saying, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." The Devil doesn't want us to have the Word of God in our hands and he surely doesn't want us to believe it!

That's why he deceives KJVOs. He wants them to believe that God is limited to just one version. Clearly, the evidence shows otherwise-such evidence as the existence of many versions throughout the history of the older major languages. Once again, the Onlyist ignores the fact that God apparently chose not to preserve the Autographs, and that JESUS HIMSELF used another version of Isaiah in Luke 4:16-21.(Compare with Isaiah 61:1-3& Isaiah 42:7.)

Let's face it-the KJVOs simply cannot provide any evidence to support their myth.

 

[ArcticBound]

I live by the Word of God (at least I try to!). I'm a simple person who wants to know what God thinks on the subject. What Scripture verses can we use to backup that God has chosen to use 50+ translations in one language? The Translations have many diffences where it counts (i.e. the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, etc.). By reading the Bible, one has to come to the conclustion that God has PRESERVED HIS WORD without error....That's what GOD said in the Bible! The Evidence I use to backup using the King James Bible is the Bible itself! ISN'T THE BIBLE ENOUGH EVIDENCE?
We don't need the original manuscripts! Paul told Timothy in 2Ti 3:15, "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Timothy didn't have the original manuscripts. But Paul said in the next verse that those Scriptures were Inspired by GOD....How Can ERROR be Inspired by GOD?
It two things are not the same, then they are different! How can one say, "All the versions in English are fine" when they are different.

Find One English Version and then stick to it and Claim it as the WORD of GOD, but Please don't take two Bibles which are different and say they both are the WORDS of GOD.

Why do we Need all these translations in the English language when we have Millions (maybe more) of people around the World we don't have ONE Bible in their Own language?

 

[ArcticBound]

ONE MORE THING.....PLEASE DON'T LAUGH AT THOSE WHO THINK GOD CAN PRESERVE HIS WORD!

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by robycop3:
The proof in English is the many English Bible versions that have been made since English has existed, with no two of them matching. And they've always been in the contemporary English style of its time.

Thee, Thou, Thine etc. were archaic in 1611. I assume they were employed for purposes of accuracy, to show the number of the underlying greek/hebrew pronouns.

Modern versions should do the same, or at least somehow show the difference, e.g. you = singular you, you*=plural you.

The NASB does something similar by labeling certain verbs with an asterisk, If I remember correctly.

In general, I prefer rare words that are accurate to common words that aren't.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by ArcticBound:
Find One English Version and then stick to it and Claim it as the WORD of GOD, but Please don't take two Bibles which are different and say they both are the WORDS of GOD.

Could this be done in 1605?

ONE MORE THING.....PLEASE DON'T LAUGH AT THOSE WHO THINK GOD CAN PRESERVE HIS WORD!

Everyone here thinks God can preserve his word. Everyone here thinks God DID preserve his word. The disagreement is in what form the preservation took place.

God bless,
Brian

 

[HankD]

Originally posted by ArcticBound:
Find One English Version and then stick to it and Claim it as the WORD of GOD, but Please don't take two Bibles which are different and say they both are the WORDS of GOD.

Is the Geneva Bible the Word of God?
Is the Tyndale Bible the Word of God?
Is the Wyclif Bible the Word of God?

A question concerning "stick to it (one English version)" why?

Why stick to one translation when even the KJV translators said that the proliferation of translations was good in finding out the "sense" of the Scriptures because they are also "the Word of God" even "the meanest of them".

Shouldn't we take their advice?

HankD