A SERIOUS OMISSION IN THE NEW BIBLES

[DougE]

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.

Who is he that took language into account?? Who are you talking about?
Sorry I have no idea of what you are trying to say, makes no sense

I said nothing of motivation I was stating the fact that they used unknown manuscripts to render a more accurate Bible reflecting a Bible closer to the original autographs

 

[Christ4Ever]

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.

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"

My salient point remains the same. You are saying the KJV didnt have our newly discovered texts, and therefore didnt have all the Word of God, For decades therefore no one had all of God's word.

[Matthew 4:4 KJV] "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." ********* We didne have all of his word until it was recently discovered according to your claim

No that is not what I said or claim at all. A copy of text is a copy of text. That you compare the old with the new, gives you what? Need I say it again??? CONTEXT! So, far as I know that is all the newer manuscripts, not by age, but date found, will provide one, and confirms both of them! You are stuck on a single word that does not change contextually anything, and say it makes one in error/wrong. This would only be the case if we had the original autographs to go by. We do not, so....

Is it possible that we have all the manuscripts that we will ever have? Yes. Is it also possible that other manuscripts will be found? Yes. Still to consider you point, we always go by the understanding through the Holy Spirit, of what we now know.

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.

Twist it however you want, but that’s not what I’m saying. Do you understand the Word of God through your own reasoning, or through the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/

 

[DougE]

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.

As far as context all of chapter 4 and 5:1 places him in Galilee
The new Bibles dont translate any of these verses as Judea
The TR says Gailee
The MGNT says Judea
You picked Judea as being right so that's that

 

[DougE]

Are you sure you're not Muslim?

No and why ask?

 

[DougE]

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?

i had to copy one of the verses to compare to the KJV from Blue Letter and NIV is a best seller and at the top of the list of Bibles who had the same different reading from the KJV

 

[DougE]

No that is not what I said or claim at all. A copy of text is a copy of text. That you compare the old with the new, gives you what? Need I say it again??? CONTEXT! So, far as I know that is all the newer manuscripts, not by age, but date found, will provide one, and confirms both of them! You are stuck on a single word that does not change contextually anything, and say it makes one in error/wrong. This would only be the case if we had the original autographs to go by. We do not, so....

Sorry but once again I have no idea what you are saying

I didnt say anything about copies or originals

You said the KJV translators didnt have the manuscripts we do today. The outcome of this is that the KJV translators didnt have ALL the Word of God and people lacked having as well

 

[DougE]

Twist it however you want, but that’s not what I’m saying. Do you understand the Word of God through your own reasoning, or through the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Not the point
The point is you are saying we may not have all the Word of God but we can understand what we have
If it is possible there is more undiscovered texts out there, they could change what you think you know today

 

[MedicBravo]

Get a MacArthur Study Bible.

 

[DougE]

Get a MacArthur Study Bible.

Why?

 

[Curtis]

1. Judea and Galilee were prominent regions in ancient Israel during the time of Jesus.
   
2. Judea, home to Jerusalem, was the political and religious center of Jewish life.​
3. Galilee, known for its rural landscape, was where Jesus conducted much of his ministry.​
4. Jesus preached all through Judea and Galilee.​

Luke 4:43 And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.
Luke 4:44 And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee.

 

[Curtis]

OK so which verse is translated accurately is it Galilee or Judea?
[Luke 4:44 KJV] "And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee."
[Luke 4:44 NIV] "And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea.*

Both translations are correct because Jesus preached in both Judea and Galilee.

 

[DougE]

1. Judea and Galilee were prominent regions in ancient Israel during the time of Jesus.
   
2. Judea, home to Jerusalem, was the political and religious center of Jewish life.​
3. Galilee, known for its rural landscape, was where Jesus conducted much of his ministry.​
4. Jesus preached all through Judea and Galilee.​

Luke 4:43 And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.
Luke 4:44 And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee.

That may well be but its not relevant to the fact that there are two different manuscripts where one says Galilee and the other says Judea. They arent in agreement so which one is right it cant be both

 

[DougE]

Both translations are correct because Jesus preached in both Judea and Galilee.

there are two different manuscripts where one says Galilee and the other says Judea. They arent in agreement so which one is right it cant be both