Where do you say the modern versions come from?

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Anti-Alexandrian:They are based upon the gnostic/philosopher tainted Alexandrian forgeries.

Howdya KNOW they were forged?

By comparing John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 3:16 between the CORRECT rendering found in the KJB and it's predecessors and the Alexandrian "bibles" and their predecessors.Strike one.

Some translators of the Alexandrian versions LIED when they said that in their preface.No shame!

Maybe, maybe not. You're guessing.

Nawp!!

Read the preface of the RSV........Strike two!

Howdya KNOW they're the correct ones? More guessing

Acts.

Howdya KNOW the Alex mss are incorrect? Still MORE guessing.

Absence of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.............STRIKE THREE!!!!!!!



You're outa here!

 

[Ed Edwards]

AVBunyan: //Put the modern versions beside a KJV and one will see that they read different – it is though the modern versions have a different origen or something. All the new versions appear to read similar and then there is a King James Bible.//

Fantastic pun

ORIGEN is the aledged originator of the dreaded Alexandrian cult.
(BTW, origin' is the word intended above).

Origen took the following scripture serious:

Mar 9:43-48 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off:
It is better for thee to enter into life maimed,
then hauing two hands, to goe into hell, into the fire that neuer shall be quenched:
44 Where their worme dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foote offend thee, cut it off:
it is better for thee to enter halt into life, then hauing
two feete, to be cast into hell, into the fire that neuer shall be quenched:
46 Where their worme dieth not, and the fire
is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out:
it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God
with one eye, then hauing two eyes, to be cast into helfire:
48 Where their worme dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

He had himself castrated so he could devote his time
to service in God. At the time the period between the acceptance
of the Lord as Savior and the baptism was 2 years.
Duing these two years, they were mentored by a Christian.
Origen spend his early years 18-38 as a full-time Church mentor.

IMHrigen got a bad rap by married preachers.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Put the modern versions beside a KJV and one will see that they read different – it is though the modern versions have a different origen or something. All the new versions appear to read similar and then there is a King James Bible.

Put a KJV beside a Geneva and one will see that they read different. The Geneva is not "modern". Neither is Coverdale's. Would any one consider Webster's version "modern"? Webster's reads differently and I'm glad; there is always more than one way to translate a foreign word into English.

Most people believe the modern versions are just updated KJV’s.

"Most people" of the humanistic world maybe; but not informed people (like the folks on this forum).

If the modern versions are not just updated KJV’s then where you do folks believe the modern versions come from?

All English Bibles are translated from the discovered ancient Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts, which are then compiled into a complete text. They must be compiled together because no discovered manuscript is a wholly complete Bible in itself; in fact, many are scraps of papyrus with only a few verses. Its a kind of puzzle. Some editors use slightly different shapes or sizes of the pieces, but the completed picture comes out basically the same.

Again – not looking to debate or make this a KJV only issue - just trying to see where some of you folks are coming from.

Well if that was concern, then the OP could have been worded differently.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Ed Edwards]

i which i could edit complex posts???
It would make me use less posts.

 

[Ed Edwards]

--------------- oops

 

[Ed Edwards]

the 4th time will work, well maybe????

 

[Ed Edwards]

AVBunyan: //Most people believe the modern versions are just updated KJV’s.//


A poll is held on this question:
Are MV's updated KJV's?
and the poll is found at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=35297

Remember after you
vote to use your BACK button to come back to this discussion.
Thank you.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Can't believe it takes me four trys to make one hyperlink

 

[Scott J]

Most people believe the modern versions are just updated KJV’s.

I am not sure I've met anyone whose read or studied a MV that thinks that. The people I know think the KJV is an older translation of the Bible and MV's are newer translations of the Bible... and they're correct.

If the modern versions are not just updated KJV’s then where you do folks believe the modern versions come from?

The faithful ones come from the providence of God just like the KJV.

The manifestly corrupt ones that do not agree with the others in doctrine and teaching are generally the products of cults or liberals attempting to cause the Bible to say or not say something.

Again – not looking to debate or make this a KJV only issue - just trying to see where some of you folks are coming from.

God bless :wavey:

Several of us have told you where we are coming from and explained ad nauseum. You are for some reason hung up on the notion that only one set of words can accurately and faithfully transmit/translate the Bible.

Until you stop limited where the facts can lead by assuming your conclusion... there is little any of us can say to help you see where we are coming from any more than you do right now.

You will have to come with a mind open to the truth and truly follow our reasoning before you'll understand us. That doesn't mean you'll agree, just that you'll understand.

As for those who've been calling us "liberals", I would invite you to look over the early Baptist confessions especially those from the era that gave us the KJV- the 1600's. These were Baptists truly under duress and persecution who nonetheless signed their names to their beliefs... and they weren't even close to being KJVO or any other version-onlyists.

We, not you, hold the historic, fundamental Baptist doctrine about the Bible.

 

[Scott J]

The last comment btw was partly because I can't get over your name "AVBunyan". Bunyan was persecuted by the same church and clergy as produced and "authorized" the KJV then forced it upon the people.

 

[robycop3]

Anti-Alexandrian:By comparing John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 3:16 between the CORRECT rendering found in the KJB and it's predecessors and the Alexandrian "bibles" and their predecessors.Strike one.

Howdya KNOW the KJV's rendering is correct? Another GUESS. Ball One.



Nawp!!

Read the preface of the RSV........Strike two!

I have. I'll give ya that one. Strike One.



Acts.

Absence of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.............STRIKE THREE!!!!!!!

But they ARE Scripture; therefore they support themselves. Ball Two.



You're outa here!

Newp! Still waitin' fer ya ta throw a worthwhile pitch. Play Ball!

 

[robycop3]

Wonder if he got it confused with "bunion"?

 

[Keith M]

We, not you, hold the historic, fundamental Baptist doctrine about the Bible.

Well said, Brother Scott! Amen! Preach it Brother!

:thumbsup: :jesus: :love2:

 

[Keith M]

Wonder if he got it confused with "bunion"?

Ouch!

:thumbsup:

 

[HankD]

Some translators of the Alexandrian versions LIED when they said that in their preface.No shame!

Do you mean that they claimed that their translation was based upon the Textus Receptus and/or the Majority Text and/or the Byzantine Text and the translation was actually based upon the Alexandrian type texts?

If so, which translation (or translations)?

Please name one translation, cite and document the FULL statement from the translation preface and then give an example from both the GREEK texts (Byzantine, Alexandrian) where in the case of a difference/variance they obviously chose the Alexandrian variant.

Because unless you document your statement, I for one refuse to believe you and will assume you are simply passing on something you heard or read without taking the time to actually prove it.

In all my research I have not found a bona fide example of what you are claiming.

It may be, and if so, please prove it to me with hard evidence.



HankD

 

[robycop3]

Obviously, A_A bases his statement upon the following:

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611.

And he skipped this part:

Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation. The task was undertaken, by authority of the Church of England, in 1870. The English Revised Version of the Bible was published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying the preferences of the American scholars associated in the work, was published in 1901.

He evidently didn't read further down:

The Revised Standard Version Bible seeks to preserve all that is best in the English Bible as it has been known and used through the years. It is intended for use in public and private worship, not merely for reading and instruction. We have resisted the temptation to use phrases that are merely current usage, and have sought to put the message of the Bible in simple, enduring words that are worthy to stand in the great Tyndale-King James tradition. We are glad to say, with the King James translators: "Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one … but to make a good one better."

The RSV DOES retain much from the KJV, only in more modern English. Whether or not it's a KJV revision or not is a matter of semantics.

 

[Keith M]

Obviously, A_A bases his statement upon the following:

And he skipped this part:

He evidently didn't read further down:

The RSV DOES retain much from the KJV, only in more modern English. Whether or not it's a KJV revision or not is a matter of semantics.

Maybe those parts you quoted were conveniently overlooked, Cranston. Then maybe they came from an Alexandrian manuscript...

:BangHead: :tonofbricks: :sleeping_2:

 

[deacon jd]

Where do the modern versions come from? Same place the KJV came from. Same place the Geneva Bible came from....a team of translators influenced by GOD, and a printing press.

Don't you wish that the team of translators mentioned above had been a little more than "influenced" by God. That is a vast difference between the MV bibles and the AV Bible. The translators of the AV were more than just influenced by God they were inspired to do a great work for God and that work has stood the test of time. Brother AV Bunyan isn't it great to have faith in the Word of God. I do not have to question whether my version has been corrupted by the error and hidden agendas of man because there are no contradictions found within the pages of Gods holy Word in the KJV.

 

[Scott J]

The translators of the AV were more than just influenced by God they were inspired to do a great work for God

There is a drastic difference between being "inspired" to do a great work and doing a great "inspired" work.

As stated before, the KJV translators were not biblically qualified to receive direct inspiration. They were great scholars.

Further, they not only didn't hold to the same fundamentals as Baptists... they persecuted and lied about the Baptists of their day who did cling to biblical fundamentals.

So, I have laid out a couple of concrete objective proofs that say the KJV translators WERE NOT INSPIRED. Can you cite even one proof that they were?

and that work has stood the test of time.

Jerome's Vulgate dominated the world for 1000 years... Do you likewise approve of it since it stood the test of time?

The ASV and RSV have been around for about 100 years... is that satisfactory? Other MV's have been around and heavily used for 30 or more years... millions have been saved and sanctified using them... Is that enough of a "test of time" to keep KJVO's from slandering God's Word?

I do not have to question whether my version has been corrupted by the error and hidden agendas of man

Really? What is "corrupted by error"? How about 7 verses with absolutely no Greek mss support... like the last 7 verses of Revelation in the KJV? How about repeated use of the term "God forbid" without any underlying text support?

because there are no contradictions found within the pages of Gods holy Word in the KJV.

The KJV like other versions has apparent contradictions that require explanation. Those places, like those in other versions, are few and only a genuine liberal Bible skeptic makes mountains out of them.

However unlike other versions, you find apparent contradictions in the KJV and the explanations given for them acceptable. That is by definition using two balances to judge...

 

[Scott J]

deacon jd, Why do you guys run from putting forth and defending proofs for what you believe?