Where is the Bible?

[franklinmonroe]

... THE ORIGINAL DOES NOT EXIST. ...

No spoken words "exist". They have no substance. Written records exist. With modern technology sounds can be recorded.

... How about Jeremiah 36:20-28 when Baruch was instructed to write again all that was burned up. The ORIGINAL was burned in the fire and the "copy" Baruch made was not the ORIGINAL. ...

You should have read to the end of the chapter (Jeremiah 36:32, KJV)--

Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words. ​

So, clearly the second scroll had additions; it was not a exact copy. It was a whole new work; an original.

 

[Johnv]

Let's not forget use of the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4

 

[annsni]

Alexandrian (from Egypt which is a type of the world)

I love this argument. Joseph and Jesus Himself were a part of the world then, huh? Did not God use Egypt to preserve?

 

[Rippon]

I have no use for the NIV except maybe when I go to the woods.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You have no credibility Mr. Mitchell.

 

[annsni]

You my friend are mistaken. The differences between the KJV of 1611 and the present KJV are spelling differences. There is ample literature available that I am not going to spend time trying to convince someone who is not honest with the truth. Thomas Nelson had one goal in mind when they published the 1611 edition of the KJV. That was to get people like you to think there are major differences between the KJV editions. They had something to gain, money ($$$). They are trying to sell a counterfiet KJV.

Oh? Here is a facimile of an actual 1611 KJV Bible. It is the passage that all KJVOs love to quote - Isaiah 14:12 where the "modern versions" use "Day Star" instead of "Lucifer" as the KJV uses. But if you would take a close look at the margin note - and then look up in the Notes to the Reader, you will see the purpose of the margin notes. The purpose is to show the alternate, yet equal reading of the passage.

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=772

 

[annsni]

You should be ashamed of yourself. You have no credibility Mr. Mitchell.

Not really. I myself am becoming less of a fan of the NIV although I still have numerous copies. As I've been studying textual criticsm, I'm finding that I really prefer to have a more literal translation of the Bible to be able to study it. If I want to just read, the NIV is a great translation, but I've been doing much more in depth stuff and the NIV just doesn't suit that as well as other translations. So I think RevMitchell would be saying that it would be a good translation to have to just read (in the woods) but to study? There are better translations for that out there.

 

[robycop3]

The AV1611 itself does much to quash many of the KJVOs' arguments, such as the marginal note for Isaiah 14:12 you mentioned, the marginal note for the 2nd them in Psalm 12:7, which cancels the KJVOs "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie", and the preface "To The Reader", which, along with the translators' marginal notes, are left outta almost all current KJV editions.(Mosta their jive came straight outta Dr. Wilkinson's book.)

I gotta chuckle every time I see a KJVO's handle with "1611" or "AV1611" in it, as I doubt if that person has ever read the AV1611 at all, judging from what they post. And sorry, but the later KJV editions are NOT the AV1611!

 

[robycop3]

Finally, someone who is honest with the differences between the KJV and the New Translations (i.e., NIV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, et al). They come from different manuscripts. The "earliest" (??) are basically from the Roman Catholic Church, Vaticanus (belongs to the Vatican), Alexandrian (from Egypt which is a type of the world), Sianiaticus (found in a Roman Catholic Monastery). Your new translations are dangerously close to saying that the redemption in Christ is only by His death and if Jesus were strangled to death instead of having His blood spilled out when the Roman Centurion rammed the spear in His side (this is the view of R.B. Theim and once held by John MacArthur) redemption is still in effect. My Bible still says "without the shedding of blood is no redemption" (Heb. 9:22). We have redemption "through his blood" (Col. 1:14).

Lemme setcha straight on a few facts, BYP. First, no one in the Vatican wrote vaticanus. They acquired it C. 1438-1445. it was already ancient then.
Next, St. Catherine's Monastery, where Sinaiticus was discovered, is GREEK ORTHODOX, not RC.
Next, there's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR KJVO, not even in the KJV itself. How, then, can you justify it, with NOTHING FROM GOD endorsing it ? ?

 

[annsni]

Lemme setcha straight on a few facts, BYP. First, no one in the Vatican wrote vaticanus. They acquired it C. 1438-1445. it was already ancient then.
Next, St. Catherine's Monastery, where Sinaiticus was discovered, is GREEK ORTHODOX, not RC.
Next, there's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR KJVO, not even in the KJV itself. How, then, can you justify it, with NOTHING FROM GOD endorsing it ? ?

What I find interesting about the KJVO argument is that they get so angry towards the vaticanus - when parts of the KJV are BASED on it.

 

[Johnv]

I'm dying to have a KJVOist tell me where in the Spanish Reina-Valera or German Huffnung translations I can find scriptural support for KJVOism.

 

[Baptist4life]

annsi, when Revmitchell referred to "going to the woods" I don't think he was talking about using the NIV to read and study.

 

[annsni]

annsi, when Revmitchell referred to "going to the woods" I don't think he was talking about using the NIV to read and study.

That was brought to my attention.

If he meant it the way I thought in my innocent mind, good.

If he meant it in the way you guys think, I do think that is disgusting. Period.

 

[Revmitchell]

What in the world does anyone think I meant? Or do I want to know?

 

[Johnv]

Doesn't matter at this point, since the original comment was edited out by a moderator. We should drop it and move on.

 

[Revmitchell]

No I need to get that straitened out. I don't know how it was taken but I don't want to leave that lingering out there considering the responses.


[snipped]


Mod note: Thank you for clarifying, this kind of disparaging remark is not permitted about any translation of the Bible.

 

[DHK]

As of now I am not going to waste any more of my time with this issue. The same people have the same arguments and the circle continues to go around and around.

We do not go around in circles. We put forth arguments that are left unanswered by you. You claim there are no mistakes in the KJV. I have already given you one. You have failed to answer it. Let me refresh your memory.

1. Romans 6:2 "God forbid" Neither God or forbid are in the Greek text.
2. Acts 12:4 The word "Easter" is a mistranslation. It is the only place in the entire NT where the Greek word "pascha" is not translated passover. It is a wrong translation. "Pascha" always means passover.
3. The Hebrew word "rheem" means wild ox or possibly "wild goat." It does not mean unicorn, as the KJV translates. The Word of God does not dabble in Greek mythology. This is a wrong translation.
4. Phil.3:20 uses the word "our 'conversation' is in heaven. The statement is false because of a wrong translation. Our conversation (usually meaning behaviour) is not in heaven; it is on earth. The word in this verse means citizenship. The translators of the KJV butchered the verse here as well. One would never get that meaning out of this verse unless they had the help of the Greek or another translation.

You talk of mistakes. There are just four of them. I could cite many more. But that ought to be enough. There are many meanings that are lost when going from one translation to another. What did it mean when Jesus said "it is easier for a camel to through the eye of a needle..." Remember: they didn't have stainless steel sewing needles back in that age.
Meaning is lost in translation.

 

[Revmitchell]

No I need to get that straitened out. I don't know how it was taken but I don't want to leave that lingering out there considering the responses.


[snipped]


Mod note: Thank you for clarifying, this kind of disparaging remark is not permitted about any translation of the Bible.

Did not know that. But nothing I said was "disgusting".

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Did not know that. But nothing I said was "disgusting".

Fair enough. I will vouch for that.

 

[robycop3]

RevMitchell & DHK, there's another very obvious goof in the KJV at 1 Timothy 6:10. The love of money is NOT *THE* root of ALL evil.

We have discussed this ad nauseam, & I'm not trying to start that discussion over. But, RevMitchell, I would ask you to consider the Greek rendering of that verse, as well as reality, to see that the CORRECT rendering - "the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil" - is quite in line with the Greek.

And also, there's no Scriptural support for KJVO, so how can a Bible-believing Baptist dare believe a doctrine of worship found nowhere in Scripture, but made entirely by MEN?

 

[annsni]

Did not know that. But nothing I said was "disgusting".

I didn't think you did until I found out there could be another interpretation of what you said. I'm the one who said "disgusting" and I'm sorry if that is not the way you meant.