Why no commitment?

[Ed Edwards]

Now, the KJB did add words or else much of the English scriptures would be unintelligable. The MVs had to do this as well. But in the KJB these words are identified in italics, while other versions do not.

The bolded statement above, while technically correct, is full of deceit. Some Modern Versions use square brackets: "[" and "]" to denote words added to make the English complete. Some KJVs avoid the italics denoting added words. And what happens when the word count in English is less than in Greek or Hebrew?

 

[annsni]

Some KJVs avoid the italics denoting added words.

This is true. I have my FIL's old Oxford KJV and it has no italics at all.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Start statement:

The bolded statement above, while technically correct, is full of deceit. Some Modern Versions use square brackets: "[" and "]" to denote words added to make the English complete. Some King James Versions avoid the italics denoting added words.


translated by Google to Spanish
translated by Google to Finnish
translated by Google back to English:

Statement is in bold above plus technically correct, is full of trickery. Some modern versions use the square brackets "[" and "]" to refer to the words increased, so that the whole England. Some versions of the King James avoided italics added the words mean

note the implied motive "deceit" has been changed to a motive neutral "trickery" (which is what I should have said, no need to impute motive here in these kind of discussions)

Note that "to make the English complete" has changed to "so that the whole England" rendering my thought lost.

Note that "Some King James Versions" changes to "Some versions of the King James". I had used the phrase normally abbreviated, but thought some might not see what my problem is here. I used "KJVs" really to mean (probably should have said it) editions of the KJV. But the translation police program doesn't want me to talk that way

Ain't translations fun, especially from language to language

Two of my three sentences got squashed out of recognition of what I was trying to say. If this goes for technical talk, what happens when we are trying to share attitudes across different cultures? What if the leaders of the cultures want us to fight, but we commone people would just like to get along with the rest of the people of earth ad go on about our business without messing the others up?

 

[Ed Edwards]

I fully realize you are unwilling to commit to any version of scripture, that is why I started this thread.

What do you fellows say when a new convert asks which Bible version he should use? Boy, that must be a real mess. :laugh:

Obviously Bro Winman wantes to discuss with those who are non-committers. That is why i get ignored cause I am willing to commit to a confusing amount of versions of the Bible: Including both the Hebrew and Greek traditions of the Old Testament; the four traditions of the the pre-Constatine [ Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus (27 February c. 272 – 22 May 337 ] Church's New Testament and the two other tradition (families) of New Testaments. Of course, I don't read Greek, Syriac, Coptic, and other languages of the first five centuries of the Church. I don't even read English much over 220 years ago (about 1776 -- Go USA! ) No English version I have read seems like it needs to be rejected, but I do allow that some might not like some of the looser dogmatic rewrite 'translations'.

My daughter teaches ESL in a grade school in Oklahoma. She has mostly students in her school for which English is a Second Language (ESL). She directs a US government money funded attempt to teach those to whom English is NOT spoken in the home. All the teachers have to work on ESL, my daughter just guildes the programs (and has special classes also, I expect, to get those with yes/no* English going enough to get my in school.

*note - not to mention the meaing of "This is Arizona -- Halt or I'll fire"

 

[Ed Edwards]

Yes, and what was the foundation of their scriptures? The Alexandrian or Critical Text. You are not helping yourself.

Both the Alexandrian Greek tradition and the Egyptian Coptic language traditions produced very good Bibles. To bad we do not have very many Coptic language scholars in Baptist Colleges and Universities :-(

It is not dumb to commit to one version. If God demanded that his Word be copied word for word and not to be added to or diminished from, then there can only be one correct version. That is plain logic.

Actually it is pretty ignorant (not knowing). 'Dumb' has a lot of baggage associated it with and has come to mean 'cannot ever learn to know'. As for your logical looking IF-THEN statement -- it reeks with the smell of error logic (actually, it is simple, just wrong).

God had one prime Son: Jesus - but the Bible says God has one Son: Messiah Jesus.
God is One: the Creator, Savior, and Lord of those who chose Him to be Lord.
No where does God say in the sacred books of the Messaniac Jews that there is one and only one BOOK that contains all His WORD one needs to know -- especially not one edition of one virsion in one of four minor languages of one small Island on the edge of the world and which was spoken 400 years ago.

 

[rsr]

Now, the KJB did add words or else much of the English scriptures would be unintelligable. The MVs had to do this as well. But in the KJB these words are identified in italics, while other versions do not.

Well, sometimes. Scrivener found the inconsistent use of italics (actually Roman type in the original) nearly maddening. After passing by the question of whether the translators were right to use different type, he went to to ask if they "were uniform, or reasonably consistent":

And in the face of patent and well ascertained facts it is impossible to answer such a question in the affirmative. Undue haste and scarcely venial carelessness on the part of the persons engaged in carrying through the press the issues of 1611, which are only too visible in other matters (see above, p. 8), are nowhere more conspicuous than with regard to this difference in the type. If it be once conceded that the Translators must have intended to use or refrain from using italics in the selfsame manner in all cases that are absolutely identical (and the contrary supposition would be strange and unreasonable indeed), their whole case in this matter must be given up as indefensible. There is really no serious attempt to avoid palpable inconsistencies on the same page, in the same verse ...

In addition, at 1 John 2:23 the translators put (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also in Roman type; this certainly was not just supplying words necessary to fill out the sense of the text: It was an addition of non-Byzantine text (found in the Alexandrian texts, the Bishops Bible, the Wycliffe Bible and the Latin Vulgate) to the new translation.

 

[Luke2427]

The JWs formed in 1870 before the publication of the MVs. They had no other choice. However, they quickly wrote their own version based on the Critical Text.

The Mormons carry around the KJB for show only, primarily to fool people into thinking they are Christians. They have the Book of Mormon as their primary book and consider it more "correct" than the KJB. They also have other sacred texts called the Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Hey, they like multiple versions too! :laugh:

It's a joke to point out false churches like this, what is the most corrupt church ever? The RCC which uses scriptures based on the CT.

Answer this question: Why commitment?

On what Scriptural grounds do you believe you should commit to one version of the Word of God and forsake all other versions of the Word of God?

 

[robycop3]

Oh??? Where?

Read all about it on the "Bible Versions Discussion Board". I'll tryta findya a link later.

 

[Luke2427]

The problem is that some think the VERSION IS the Word of God.

It is not. In the case of the KJV, for example, it is the King James VERSION of the Bible.

The church has historically understood this to be true. The Word of God is preserved in the superabundance of manuscripts.

The Word of God is that which God inspired via the original authors. God has overseen the copying of thousands of manuscripts so that every generation would have access to the Word of God. When we tap into it we translate it into a version.

The version can be tremendously accurate and we can say with confidence- Here in this King James Version of the Bible we find the Word of the living God. Many godly and knowledgeable scholars have translated it faithfully and we can rest assured that what we hold in our hands is the Truth.

But because translators are human there are a few very minor errors which do not affect the TRUTH in any way. There are words that could have been rendered better, etc...

The TRANSLATION is NOT the Word of God. The idea that it is, is a dangerous extra-biblical doctrine.

 

[robycop3]

Answer this question: Why commitment?

On what Scriptural grounds do you believe you should commit to one version of the Word of God and forsake all other versions of the Word of God?

Winman apparently likesta ASK Qs, but doesn't liketa ANSWER them. He asked "Why no committment?" which was duly answered by several of us, but when I asked him "Why KJVO without any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT?" he failedta answer.

Methinx he's on some sorta guilt trip about being KJVO & is trying to make some other feel ashamed for not going along with his fantasy; that he's still seeking something...ANYTHING...to justify his KJVO belief. He has NO SCRIPTURAL BACKING, so he must seek some MAN-MADE excuse to justify his belief. He should know from being on this board for awhile that we Freedom Readers have solid, irrefutable reasons for REJECTING the whole KJVO thingie, and that we're gonna see that newer believers are aware of our reasons, and their SOURCES, that none of them are guesswork on our part as his pro-KJVO excuses are on HIS part.

His "faith" excuse is an old one, shot outta the saddle long ago by hebrews 11:1, which sez faith is substance & evidence. KJVO HAS NEITHER, so his "faith" in it is actually GUESSWORK.

I'm waiting for his next excuse for believing KJVO so I can snuff it out in about 8 seconds. That's all his "committment" thingie is...another fishing expedition hoping to find some KJVO justification . Well, it aint gonna happen!

 

[robycop3]

The problem is that some think the VERSION IS the Word of God.

It is not. In the case of the KJV, for example, it is the King James VERSION of the Bible.

The church has historically understood this to be true. The Word of God is preserved in the superabundance of manuscripts.

The Word of God is that which God inspired via the original authors. God has overseen the copying of thousands of manuscripts so that every generation would have access to the Word of God. When we tap into it we translate it into a version.

The version can be tremendously accurate and we can say with confidence- Here in this King James Version of the Bible we find the Word of the living God. Many godly and knowledgeable scholars have translated it faithfully and we can rest assured that what we hold in our hands is the Truth.

But because translators are human there are a few very minor errors which do not affect the TRUTH in any way. There are words that could have been rendered better, etc...

The TRANSLATION is NOT the Word of God. The idea that it is, is a dangerous extra-biblical doctrine.

I believe GOD chose Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek in which to originally place His written word for two reasons: First, they were the main languages of the Levites and Jews, His chosen writers of His word. Second, He had planned to freeze those languages in time so they'd be UNCHANGING, and thus would always be translated essentially the same into active languages, with translators being able to render His word into the CURRENT form of any given language.

All the more reason to NOT tryta LIMIT GOD to one's fave translation alone!

 

[Luke2427]

Winman apparently likesta ASK Qs, but doesn't liketa ANSWER them. He asked "Why no committment?" which was duly answered by several of us, but when I asked him "Why KJVO without any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT?" he failedta answer.

Methinx he's on some sorta guilt trip about being KJVO & is trying to make some other feel ashamed for not going along with his fantasy; that he's still seeking something...ANYTHING...to justify his KJVO belief. He has NO SCRIPTURAL BACKING, so he must seek some MAN-MADE excuse to justify his belief. He should know from being on this board for awhile that we Freedom Readers have solid, irrefutable reasons for REJECTING the whole KJVO thingie, and that we're gonna see that newer believers are aware of our reasons, and their SOURCES, that none of them are guesswork on our part as his pro-KJVO excuses are on HIS part.

His "faith" excuse is an old one, shot outta the saddle long ago by hebrews 11:1, which sez faith is substance & evidence. KJVO HAS NEITHER, so his "faith" in it is actually GUESSWORK.

I'm waiting for his next excuse for believing KJVO so I can snuff it out in about 8 seconds. That's all his "committment" thingie is...another fishing expedition hoping to find some KJVO justification . Well, it aint gonna happen!

Yea, but why don't you just say how you really feel about it?

 

[Luke2427]

I believe GOD chose Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek in which to originally place His written word for two reasons: First, they were the main languages of the Levites and Jews, His chosen writers of His word. Second, He had planned to freeze those languages in time so they'd be UNCHANGING, and thus would always be translated essentially the same into active languages, with translators being able to render His word into the CURRENT form of any given language.

All the more reason to NOT tryta LIMIT GOD to one's fave translation alone!

I have also found that logic very compelling for a while now. That Christ came in the fullness of time and that his words and the words of his apostles were given to us in one of the most descriptive languages of all time and that that language would freeze in its state at that time is very interesting.

And you are absolutely correct that limiting the Word of God to any VERSION is a terrible limitation. Fortunately those who do so are comparatively small in number to those who know better.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Just to throw another pebble into the water.

Y'all do know the translation our Russian speaking brethren and sisters went to jail and death for is the Synodical Version. The SV is an update from the Old Church SlavonicTranslation. The SV was written by clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church. In my limited acquaintance with it, it varies in places from the KJV and the Greek. Think of a Duay-Rheims without the AV 1611 to act as a counter balance.

 

[Winman]

Obviously Bro Winman wantes to discuss with those who are non-committers. That is why i get ignored cause I am willing to commit to a confusing amount of versions of the Bible: Including both the Hebrew and Greek traditions of the Old Testament; the four traditions of the the pre-Constatine [ Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus (27 February c. 272 – 22 May 337 ] Church's New Testament and the two other tradition (families) of New Testaments. Of course, I don't read Greek, Syriac, Coptic, and other languages of the first five centuries of the Church. I don't even read English much over 220 years ago (about 1776 -- Go USA! ) No English version I have read seems like it needs to be rejected, but I do allow that some might not like some of the looser dogmatic rewrite 'translations'.

My daughter teaches ESL in a grade school in Oklahoma. She has mostly students in her school for which English is a Second Language (ESL). She directs a US government money funded attempt to teach those to whom English is NOT spoken in the home. All the teachers have to work on ESL, my daughter just guildes the programs (and has special classes also, I expect, to get those with yes/no* English going enough to get my in school.

*note - not to mention the meaing of "This is Arizona -- Halt or I'll fire"

I have not purposely ignored you, I was off the computer for two days.

You say you are commited to many various versions of the Bible. That's like telling a girl you are committed to her and five other girls. Try that argument with her and see how it flies. :laugh:

My original question asked why no MV seems able to commit to a single version of scripture. To say you are committed to many various versions is to say you are committed to none. Perhaps some here do not understand what commitment is.

What I am asking is this, why are there no brainwashed fanatics in the MV camp? Why are there millions of Christians who will make a bold stand for only the KJB, but you cannot find anyone (or nearly anyone) who will make such a stand for a single version of the MVs? I think that incredible.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I have not purposely ignored you, I was off the computer for two days.

You say you are commited to many various versions of the Bible. That's like telling a girl you are committed to her and five other girls. Try that argument with her and see how it flies. :laugh:

My original question asked why no MV seems able to commit to a single version of scripture. To say you are committed to many various versions is to say you are committed to none. Perhaps some here do not understand what commitment is.

What I am asking is this, why are there no brainwashed fanatics in the MV camp? Why are there millions of Christians who will make a bold stand for only the KJB, but you cannot find anyone (or nearly anyone) who will make such a stand for a single version of the MVs? I think that incredible.

What I think is incredible is that you continue to push for something that has no Scriptural support, nor even broad historical support.

I think you do not understand that there are millions of Christians who have never heard of the KJV, for whom KJVO is not, and never has been (and hopefully never will be) an issue. Only about 8% of the world's population is English-speaking and of those 8% only a very few can read the KJV 1769 with any amount of understanding.

No one minds you using the KJV, and no one here is trying to pry it out of your hands. So why do you keep trying to pry our Bibles out of our hands??

No where are we commanded to commit to a single version of Scripture. No where, nowhere, not here and not never. That is just a smokescreen.

 

[Winman]

What I think is incredible is that you continue to push for something that has no Scriptural support, nor even broad historical support.

I think you do not understand that there are millions of Christians who have never heard of the KJV, for whom KJVO is not, and never has been (and hopefully never will be) an issue. Only about 8% of the world's population is English-speaking and of those 8% only a very few can read the KJV 1769 with any amount of understanding.

No one minds you using the KJV, and no one here is trying to pry it out of your hands. So why do you keep trying to pry our Bibles out of our hands??

No where are we commanded to commit to a single version of Scripture. No where, nowhere, not here and not never. That is just a smokescreen.

It is scriptural in that God has promised to preserve his "pure" word. Pure means without error or corruption. So you cannot have many various versions that either add or diminish from God's Word. The CT has nearly 3000 less words in the Greek from the RT, so either the CT diminished from God's Word, or the RT added to it. But they cannot both be the pure Word of God at the same time, it is impossible.

I will agree, that does not identify the KJB as that preserved and pure Word of God in English. But if not, then which version is?

And that is the point of my original question. If the KJB is not the preserved and pure Word of God in English, then one of the other versions must be. So why aren't there any persons out there committed to one of the MVs?

And you know, I could make the same argument as you. Where in all of scripture does God say he will manifest his word in many various versions?

So, your same argument can be used against you. It is a fallacious argument that proves nothing whatsoever.

And like I said, try telling your wife you are committed to her and five other women and see if she is convinced by your ridicuous argument. I am betting you better duck, because a frying pan might be coming your way. To say you are committed to many versions is to say you are committed to none.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It is scriptural in that God has promised to preserve his "pure" word. Pure means without error or corruption. So you cannot have many various versions that either add or diminish from God's Word. The CT has nearly 3000 less words in the Greek from the RT, so either the CT diminished from God's Word, or the RT added to it. But they cannot both be the pure Word of God at the same time, it is impossible.

I will agree, that does not identify the KJB as that preserved and pure Word of God in English. But if not, then which version is?

And that is the point of my original question. If the KJB is not the preserved and pure Word of God in English, then one of the other versions must be. So why aren't there any persons out there committed to one of the MVs?

And you know, I could make the same argument as you. Where in all of scripture does God say he will manifest his word in many various versions?

So, your same argument can be used against you.

Not making an argument, stating a fact. NO WHERE does the Bible say there must be a "pure" word of God in English. You're chasing your tail and it is amusing to watch.

 

[Winman]

Not making an argument, stating a fact. NO WHERE does the Bible say there must be a "pure" word of God in English. You're chasing your tail and it is amusing to watch.

It doesn't have to say it in that manner, that is a fallacious argument made by the MVs. God said he would preserve his pure Word to all generations, so God's pure Word must be out there. It is up to us to identify it.

The fact that God said he would preserve his pure Word proves that many various versions, some with thousands of less words, many dozens of less verses, and missing complete passages cannot all be the pure Word of God. Either somebody is adding to God's Word, or somebody is diminishing from it.

You can make your fallacious arguments forever, the only persons being fooled by it are the persons making this argument. If that is what you want to do, I can't stop you, but you are only deceiving yourself.

 

[annsni]

I have not purposely ignored you, I was off the computer for two days.

You say you are commited to many various versions of the Bible. That's like telling a girl you are committed to her and five other girls. Try that argument with her and see how it flies. :laugh:

My original question asked why no MV seems able to commit to a single version of scripture. To say you are committed to many various versions is to say you are committed to none. Perhaps some here do not understand what commitment is.

What I am asking is this, why are there no brainwashed fanatics in the MV camp? Why are there millions of Christians who will make a bold stand for only the KJB, but you cannot find anyone (or nearly anyone) who will make such a stand for a single version of the MVs? I think that incredible.

We don't stand for a single version because then that would be offensive to God by stating that the other versions that we don't choose are not God's Word. Instead, we stand on the truth that there are multiple versions that are God's Word for mankind. There are some in English and many in other languages. Thank God for gifting man with the ability to be able to translate His Word into languages that the common man can understand - just as the KJV translators encouraged, by the way.