I still think when Judea was used it represented Palestine. It would include Galilee, but not identify it specifically
You are missing it
You say it’s an error, but the truth is you don’t know. It could just as easily have been the other way around because the KJV did not use manuscripts that were available to the modern translators. Saying that it’s an error is actually an error in itself.
I'm not missing anything. Where is your proof that those who translated, the NIV were attempting to correct the KJV? I mean besides trying to use the English that is used today instead of the English that is used in the KJV? As well as manuscripts unavailable to the translators of the KJV, I'm sure you see that as a correction, I do not.
www.christianity.com
There are two manuscripts and one of them is in error
The translators have proved it by saying "Footnote: Some Greek manuscripts exclude this verse. The ESV related footnote for Matthew 17:20 states:
I haven't said anything about being sinister or ascribing motives
Never said or thought any such thing
Changing a verse does not have to change other surrounding or remote verses. What was being conveyed by a single verse can be altered without affecting the other verses
Here are my comments
Probably a lot more, but again I won't say error. Especially since the context was not changed. Otherwise, a misplaced period, or any punctuation would be considered an error. How far are you willing to go without the original autographs to go by...
No that's how you interpret their use of footnote. I noted my reasoning already as a possibility...which you excluded above.
Sure you have. Your constant use of the word "error" suggests an underlying motive exists, even if it’s just human error by the scribe who copied from the original autograph or copy. You just haven't been bold enough to put those thoughts out there except to state in error...
Well, since contextually nothing has changed, and the original autographs are not available to you; how do you go about determining that? For one who doesn't want to deal with manuscripts, to justify your positions, you're going to have to. In truth I don't have to, since I use parallel Bibles, and seek context, and even more importantly prayer and the Holy Spirit for understanding.
Correct. If you're looking for perfection in the Word; you'll only find it through prayer and the Holy Spirit. Not in the paper you hold in your hands. This makes it clear why God in His infinite wisdom did not allow for the originals to exists any longer than necessary to ensure the Words continuance. People might have begun to venerate it, making God secondary to the object. Just as some do with creation, which simply proclaims the glory of God but is not God (Psalm 19:1), they end up worshiping it and treating it as if it were god (Gaia). Sad commentary of how far humanity has fallen.
So, you only care because it happened to come up first... alright. I suppose one reason is as good as another, as long as you stick with it and apply it to your life through Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
I see that what you are saying would mean the KJV translators didnt have all the preserved Word of God because they didnt have the recently discovered manuscripts.
You say it’s an error, but the truth is you don’t know. It could just as easily have been the other way around because the KJV did not use manuscripts that were available to the modern translators. Saying that it’s an error is actually an error in itself.
I'm not missing anything. Where is your proof that those who translated, the NIV were attempting to correct the KJV? I mean besides trying to use the English that is used today instead of the English that is used in the KJV? As well as manuscripts unavailable to the translators of the KJV, I'm sure you see that as a correction, I do not.
You’re being stubborn in refusing to acknowledge that there wasn’t a sinister ulterior motive behind the creation of not only the NIV, but also other modern translations—translations based on manuscripts the KJV translators didn’t have access to. So, because they are not actually the same in English as read, you come to a conclusion there must be an error somewhere. This is why context must also be a consideration. If what is written changes the context of the whole, then I'd agree with you. It does not.
Here's an article I came across from Christianity Today, that you might find interesting. By the way it doesn't talk about manuscripts! Not in any specific way...lol
Should We Fight Over the KJV vs the NIV Bible?
The King James Version (KJV) and the New International Version (NIV) are two of the most widely read and respected translations of the Bible within the English-speaking world. But which one should you choose?
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><
Let's go back to this
It doesnt matter about context
[Psalm 138:2 KJV] "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."
I selected the NIV because it was 1st in the list of all the Bible translations to copy
Believing (having faith) always believes (has faith) in the one who gives it. Faith comes from Jesus, who is the Word from which faith comes. You can not have faith (believing) without it being in Jesus.
The verse doesnt say to believe on Jesus, it just says believe
You say it’s an error, but the truth is you don’t know. It could just as easily have been the other way around because the KJV did not use manuscripts that were available to the modern translators. Saying that it’s an error is actually an error in itself.
That’s not what I was saying, and what you did is a perfect example of why context matters in writing. I started above with the full text of what I had written to you, followed by the part you quoted in your last post. You quoted the section that supported the point you made afterward, instead of including the full context I had provided, which was only an example of a “possibility” and not something I actually believed happened or should be considered.
I can agree in part, but we know he took into account the language differences of the time, but not the issue of using manuscripts that were then unknown. Whether that was considered remains unknown, because I have not come across anything stating that was a consideration of his. We have enough questions as it is without creating others on the motivation of the person who initiated the translation in the first place.
Sorry I disagree. I've explained this before, concerning the use of Judea in place of Galilee. I am not supporting the use of one over the other, but it changes nothing, and why I say context is important.
Are you sure you're not Muslim? Don't get me wrong. The Bible is precious to me. Yet not so precious that I would keep from giving it to another who does not have one. My wife could not understand how I could give away a bible to a complete strange that I've had for years; with notes and everything in it, without a single thought.
To copy what? From different manuscripts, KJV, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great bible, Geneva Bible, or maybe include also the Bishop's Bibles as well? Maybe, the NIV copied from different manuscripts, RSV or NASB along with all the previously mentioned?
Here is all you wrote..........."You say it’s an error, but the truth is you don’t know. It could just as easily have been the other way around because the KJV did not use manuscripts that were available to the modern translators. Saying that it’s an error is actually an error in itself"
You say you can go by the understanding through the Holy Spirit so you dont need all the Word of God then do you? This pernicious stand must be adopted to justify, by any means, that we dont need every word of God despite God saying we do.
