Where is the Bible?

[Jim1999]

I have no difficulty believing that there were original manuscripts (the very concepts that God intended man to know) and that they were accurately passed down to humankind over the years.

I have no difficulty believing that whatever version of scripture I am reading has sufficient accuracy that my faith is not in vain.

Even when man makes an error in translation the concept is sufficiently accurate to bring me to God through Jesus the Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Revmitchell]

Isa 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.


Sad that some think they are so intellectual that they can not rely God or His word.

 

[Bayouparson]

It's regrettable you feel this way. I believe in the inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God, and I'm sorry to say some do not.

I also have an inspired Bible but it is not in some "lost" manuscripts. Here is a thought for you. Why do the "anti" KJV people find all the "mistakes" in translation in the KJV but never find any "mistakes" in the NIV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, et al? Are they prejudiced agains the KJV or just blind to the mistakes in other translations?

 

[sag38]

We could ask you the same question. (And why do you find mistakes i the NIV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, et al, and yet are blind to those in the KJV?)

 

[Johnv]

Did God pen His words down or did man as God inspired him?

You're not answering the question:

Do you believe that God promised to preserve a specific original manuscript apart from others?

Is it your position, therefore, that translations are inspired?

 

[Bayouparson]

We could ask you the same question. (And why do you find mistakes i the NIV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, et al, and yet are blind to those in the KJV?)

You folks refuse to answer questions. You simply ask the same question back. This is an indication that you evidently don't have an answer. My answer to you is that there are no translation mistakes in the KJV, only perceived ones by those who refuse to accept the authority of the KJV. I refer to the other translations but find they leave out a large number of words, even important ones like "the blood of Christ" (Col.1:14) which is a travesty in translation. It is not a mistake in translation, but willful neglect of the importance of the blood of Christ. That my friend is a doctrinal error.

 

[Johnv]

My answer to you is that there are no translation mistakes in the KJV...

Are you attempting to claim that the KJV has doctrinal superiority or authority over all other translations, or that the KJV was divinely inspired over other translations?

 

[Johnv]

I refer to the other translations but find they leave out a large number of words, even important ones like "the blood of Christ" (Col.1:14) which is a travesty in translation.

What does the source text say? It reads:
apolutrosis dia tou haima.

Only later manuscripts contain the word "haima", which roughly means atoning by the shedding of blood (but not exclusively). Earlier manuscripts only say "apolutrosis". The likely explanation is that later manuscripts added the word "haima". KJV translators used only later manuscripts in their translating, which is why they render the phrase "redemption through his blood", but translations using earlier manuscripts render it "redemption", frequently footnoting the fact that earlier manuscripts say "redemption through his blood".

So, your issue isn't with the translators. It's with the source manuscripts.

 

[Tater77]

And also, this is the ONLY part where the Blood is left out due to a textual conflict. If someone were trying to "remove" the Blood of Christ, they did a terrible job of it. That argument is a straw man that can easily be taken down.

 

[Bayouparson]

Are you attempting to claim that the KJV has doctrinal superiority or authority over all other translations, or that the KJV was divinely inspired over other translations?

It is not an "attempted" claim, it is the truth. My final authority is the KJV and I know that grates at your liberal thinking that this is archaic and un-scholarly. When a translation begins to take away from the Bible it has some serious problems. I am not a card carrying "Scholars Union" member although my credentials are as good as yours.

 

[Rippon]

I refer to the other translations but find they leave out a large number of words, even important ones like "the blood of Christ" (Col.1:14) which is a travesty in translation. It is not a mistake in translation, but willful neglect of the importance of the blood of Christ. That my friend is a doctrinal error.

Colossians 1:19,20 :

"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." (NIV &TNIV)

 

[annsni]

It is not an "attempted" claim, it is the truth. My final authority is the KJV and I know that grates at your liberal thinking that this is archaic and un-scholarly. When a translation begins to take away from the Bible it has some serious problems. I am not a card carrying "Scholars Union" member although my credentials are as good as yours.

Hmmm - When you place your final authority on a book rather than Christ, there are problems. What about the true KJV (the original 1611) that has been changed and marginal notes, that were said of the translators to be vitally important when there were two equal choices in translation, have been removed so as to confuse the reader? Just those marginal note removals have resulted in petty arguments against the modern translations when those who stand on the KJV don't see that the ORIGINAL KJV had the very same words. Very sad.

 

[Bayouparson]

What does the source text say? It reads:
apolutrosis dia tou haima.

Only later manuscripts contain the word "haima", which roughly means atoning by the shedding of blood (but not exclusively). Earlier manuscripts only say "apolutrosis". The likely explanation is that later manuscripts added the word "haima". KJV translators used only later manuscripts in their translating, which is why they render the phrase "redemption through his blood", but translations using earlier manuscripts render it "redemption", frequently footnoting the fact that earlier manuscripts say "redemption through his blood".

So, your issue isn't with the translators. It's with the source manuscripts.

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).

 

[Bayouparson]

Hmmm - When you place your final authority on a book rather than Christ, there are problems. What about the true KJV (the original 1611) that has been changed and marginal notes, that were said of the translators to be vitally important when there were two equal choices in translation, have been removed so as to confuse the reader? Just those marginal note removals have resulted in petty arguments against the modern translations when those who stand on the KJV don't see that the ORIGINAL KJV had the very same words. Very sad.

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.

 

[Johnv]

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).

Not necessarily true. First, the Septuagint and Codex Alexandrinus are not related to Roman Catholic sources, and do not include the aforementioned phrase. Second, there's no evidence that the Codexes Vaticanus and Siniaticus "removed" the phrase, since there's nothing to support the idea that the phrase existed at all until much later, and since there are other phrases in scripture attesting to the saving power of Christ and Christ alone, which were remain in those texts. BTW, it should be noted that the Codex Siniaticus came from Greek Orthodox sources, not Roman Catholic sources.

 

[Bayouparson]

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.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... If "mistakes are made in translation" (as you say) how do we know that Luke did an adequate job of translating what Paul was saying?

Very similar questions could be applied to many passages of the Bible: How do you know that Tertius wrote exactly what Paul dictated to him for Romans? How do you know the precise words of Jesus as He prayed in private are recorded in the Gospels? We accept these words by faith. There are numerous examples of apparent omissions and differences among the Gospel quotations of Christ. It is likely that much of the dialog between Jesus, the disciples, the Jews and others was in Aramaic.

It is probable that many of these people could speak several languages: Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, maybe even some Latin. When multilingual people process (understand) a familiar language they do not 'translate' within their mind. Even I don't translate "Gracias" from Spanish into "Thanks" in English when I hear it; I have come to just receive the word as a common term for gratitude.

 

[Johnv]

It is not an "attempted" claim, it is the truth. My final authority is the KJV and I know that grates at your liberal thinking that this is archaic and un-scholarly.

The problem you post is twofold.

First, single-translation-onlyism is by definition liberalism, since it adds to scriptural doctrine.

Second, your claim that the KJV has doctrinal superiority or authority over all other translations is easily refuted. I recently finished reading the Dutch Statenvertaling Bible. There is nothing scripturally to support the notion that the KJV has doctrinal superiority over the Statenvertaling. The claim of KJV doctrinal superiority is further refuted by anying who can read the Textus Receptus. To claim that the KJV has doctrinal superiority over the TR is not supported in scripture, there is therefore false doctrine. Lastly, I can hold up a Geneva Bible, which predated the KJV. There is nothing to support the claim that the KJV has doctrinal superiority over the Geneva Bible. Thse are three very simple examples as to the claim of KJV doctinal superiority fails.

 

[Havensdad]

More importantly...

The KJV contains KNOWN errors. Heres one...

Mat 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.


Now, as anyone who knows their Old Testament knows, the Sabbath does NOT end at dawn, but at dusk.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is not an "attempted" claim, it is the truth. My final authority is the KJV and I know that grates at your liberal thinking that this is archaic and un-scholarly. When a translation begins to take away from the Bible it has some serious problems. I am not a card carrying "Scholars Union" member although my credentials are as good as yours.

The KJV is superior to some but necessarily to all. [snipped] But the KJV only arguments are as ridiculous as any I have seen. We need to be careful with the Word of God but the KJV only arguments discredits sober thinking. Have you ever read an original KJV. I have seen one but cannot read it, it is like another language all together.

Mod note: Apologies for the quick snip without first asking how you meant the statement. I should have asked first. RP