Which version of the bible is best to read?

[sintheticg]

very good reading lawrenceb and tulsa. i was going to respond but you did so better than i could have imagined. OP KJV is not hard to understand, I quit reading in the 6th grade and didnt read again until i picked up a bible at age 20. the KJV is easy for me to understand and when a preacher quotes verses in NIV my mind can't follow and i tune out the rest of his sermon.

dont speed read, slow down, dissect every word, it's better that way.

 

[ccfromsc]

:magnify: Ok. The precious manuscripts that you argue about being "corrupt" are so close the manuscripts that the real difference in the KJV is the use of the latin by Erasmus and the Vulgate copies he used. Which added to the bible.... many things that were not there in other manuscripts. BTW You buddy Dr. Logsdon did not do anything with the NASB. On their site there is a statement regarding him. And using stuff right out of the book New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger is laughable. She has been debunked for years. Besides do you believe in unicorns like the KJV says? Also Satyr?

 

[New Legacy]

Amen, tulsa 2011.



In other words, you believe we don't have a "pure and perfect and irrefutable Bible...on Earth....protected throughout the ages," 'so why not make use of all versions of it that are available today?'

I am not sure how there could be a 'pure and perfect' bible. One, you have the issue of language. You cannot 'purely' or 'perfectly' translate from one language to the next. You can convey the meaning, but language is more art. When translating Greek or Hebrew, different people will translate it different ways.

Rather, either one believes God has kept his promise (Psalm 12), i.e. he has given us his pure, inspired preserved for ever word, or he believes God has not kept his promise.

Where did God make a promise that he would have a bible the way you suppose? Obviously the meaning of the text remains the same, but there are differences.

This is often the problem when people suppose the bible was written by God, as if he was speaking into the ear of the person and he writes everything down word for word, versus a person and a community writing down what they have heard and see which is inspired and protected by the Holy Spirit.

Did you know that The Holy Bible actually mentions several “translations” of itself, within itself? God does not care a bit about “translations,” per se. The “translations issue” is a red herring, designed to move you away from the truth that God has left us with his inspired, pure, perfect, preserved word, and move you toward the domain of man and his textual criticisms.

You can translate things differently while conveying the same meaning. You can't 'perfectly' translate Greek or Hebrew.

As a born again believer of Jesus Christ, I believe that the words of the uncopyrighted King James Authorized Version are the pure and preserved words of God for the English speaking people. The wicked Laodiceans and Alexandrians do not believe that any human being should have a printed final authority to guide him through this wicked world of darkness and deceit.

Where does the bible claim to be a final authority or that there would only be one translation per language?
Do you believe the bible is the literal words of God? Or do you believe it is the word of God written by the words of men through God's inspiration?

The Alexandrian apostates work endlessly in their efforts to replace your two-edged sword with a toothpick. These people take great delight in ridiculing and intimidating people like you and me, and far too often they win because we do not know the answers. With a good basic knowledge, you CAN know the answers and you can win a few battles of your own.

Not sure what the 'Alexandrian apostates' refers to.

Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan?

I would think that the people of God would benefit from looking at different translations of a passage according to different translators. Not to mention how great it is to look at the earlier manuscripts that don't have copyist errors.

Today's per-versions and lexicons, copyrighted by unsaved men who claim ownership of them, are easily spotted by the discerning.

If I were to distill all the arguments, this one fact tells it all:

There are about 5300 extant (existing) manuscripts and autographs from which we get our Holy Bible. The Holy Bible (KJV) is based on over 99%[/COLOR] of that 5000 (commonly known as the Majority Text or Received Text). However, ALL modern versions are based upon the remainder (less than 0.5% i.e. less than 20) and which were rejected by the translators as CORRUPT.

The KJV was done through the taxes collected by the people. New translations cannot be funded by governments. As a result, the costs has to come from somewhere. Translating is a huge project.

When someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts"

I don't think any translators make the claim that they are 'correcting' anything or that theirs is more authoritative. Maybe your resistance to them has to do with this?

or "older manuscripts," or "the best authorities," or "originals,"

They are objectively older manuscripts. Whether or not you think they are the best authority is up to you. I don't think there ever was an 'original' version for almost all of the NT texts. I guess that might be believed if someone thinks the writers were being told by God what to write instead of being infallible inspired.

they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These are two very corrupt fourth century manuscripts that are practically worshipped by modern scholars. These are the primary manuscripts that mystics Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on when constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which today's new versions are based.

What evidence do you have that they are corrupt?
I would think the later manuscripts would be more prone to corruption. I don't think any have been altered that compromises their moral authority, but there are differences.

Vaticanus is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844. Both are Roman Catholic manuscripts. Remember that!

Not sure why where they come from is important. St. Catherine's is actually Eastern Orthodox, not Catholic. Pretty much any texts we have are going to have been through the Catholic or Orthodox (or Coptic) Churches. Until the Reformation, there were no other Christian organizations with their own lineage of manuscripts.

Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!

So all the manuscripts disagree with each other in certain places - how does that prove KJV is the valid one? I am curious about the legitimacy of the 3000 differences on the Gospels.

The wanna-be scholars absolutely hate it when these irrefutable facts are presented, because these facts totally eliminate the wiggle room they require to play "scholar" with plain folk like you and me.

Up to this point your argument is that the other manuscripts are 'corrupt' and that all the manuscripts have differences between them. I am not seeing your facts on the issue?

So the question is not "Shall we translate the Bible from English into other languages?" The question is "Which Bible shall we use to translate God's words into the various languages of the world?" I know the King James Bible is God's preserved words in English. So my choice is made. May God help the translators of the world to use God's words, and not a perversion that will only bring them into judgment before our Almighty God.

So you literally believe that God wrote each and every word in the bible?
Traditionally it was believe that God was infallibly inspiring the authors, not telling them which words to write. Your view seems similar to the way Muslims view the Qur'an or am I wrong there?

 

[james1523]

Amen, tulsa 2011.



In other words, you believe we don't have a "pure and perfect and irrefutable Bible...on Earth....protected throughout the ages," 'so why not make use of all versions of it that are available today?'

Rather, either one believes God has kept his promise (Psalm 12), i.e. he has given us his pure, inspired preserved for ever word, or he believes God has not kept his promise.

Did you know that The Holy Bible actually mentions several “translations” of itself, within itself? God does not care a bit about “translations,” per se. The “translations issue” is a red herring, designed to move you away from the truth that God has left us with his inspired, pure, perfect, preserved word, and move you toward the domain of man and his textual criticisms.

The Word of God has been under attack since the beginning. "satan commeth immediately and taketh away the word..." (Mark 4:15 KJV)

As a born again believer of Jesus Christ, I believe that the words of the uncopyrighted King James Authorized Version are the pure and preserved words of God for the English speaking people. The wicked Laodiceans and Alexandrians do not believe that any human being should have a printed final authority to guide him through this wicked world of darkness and deceit.

The Alexandrian apostates work endlessly in their efforts to replace your two-edged sword with a toothpick. These people take great delight in ridiculing and intimidating people like you and me, and far too often they win because we do not know the answers. With a good basic knowledge, you CAN know the answers and you can win a few battles of your own.

satan wants to be LIKE the Most High God. His followers can be transformed into ministers of righteousness and his counterfeit "bibles" (400+ modern per-versions and counting) into The Holy Bible.

Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan?

Today's per-versions and lexicons, copyrighted by unsaved men who claim ownership of them, are easily spotted by the discerning.

If I were to distill all the arguments, this one fact tells it all:

There are about 5300 extant (existing) manuscripts and autographs from which we get our Holy Bible. The Holy Bible (KJV) is based on over 99% of that 5000 (commonly known as the Majority Text or Received Text). However, ALL modern versions are based upon the remainder (less than 0.5% i.e. less than 20) and which were rejected by the translators as CORRUPT.

When someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts" or "older manuscripts," or "the best authorities," or "originals," they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These are two very corrupt fourth century manuscripts that are practically worshipped by modern scholars. These are the primary manuscripts that mystics Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on when constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which today's new versions are based.

Vaticanus is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844. Both are Roman Catholic manuscripts. Remember that!

Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!

The wanna-be scholars absolutely hate it when these irrefutable facts are presented, because these facts totally eliminate the wiggle room they require to play "scholar" with plain folk like you and me.

When seeking the Truth ala the King James Bible, be prepared to be set upon by the enemy. The priests and Pharisees are the same today as then. They are afraid of the truth, afraid of the light, afraid of losing their status. They say, "If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death." (John 11:48, 53 KJV)

God told us his word is pure, inspired and preserved, so the relevant question is this: Is what you have in your hands now the genuine article (i.e. do you have the scriptures)?

Regarding the "dialects" question, Spanish folks, for example, have the inspired word of God in their vernacular ("common") Bibles. Likewise, the Portuguese, German, French, etc. This has always been God's pattern: give the COMMON MAN the COMMON BIBLE in the COMMON LANGUAGE of the day to do one thing -- evangelize the world.

God has preserved His words through the broad flow of history. People today say, "How dare you King James-only people! You just want to force people to translate the KJV into other languages!" But look at the NIV: That perversion is being translated all over the world, and it is STILL the NIV! The NIV in Spanish, for example, is not very different at all from the NIV. The Dutch, French and other versions are still NIVs! And the NIV is most definitely an English Bible.

So the question is not "Shall we translate the Bible from English into other languages?" The question is "Which Bible shall we use to translate God's words into the various languages of the world?" I know the King James Bible is God's preserved words in English. So my choice is made. May God help the translators of the world to use God's words, and not a perversion that will only bring them into judgment before our Almighty God.

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. (2 Timothy 1:7 KJV)

Those who want to appropriate a work of men, e.g. any copyrighted book, are certainly able to do so - as long as they give proper worldly attribution to the copyright holder.

Conversely, those who want to appropriate the pure, inspired, preserved for ever word of God via his vernacular Bible(s) such as the KJB (for English speakers), are certainly able to do so - it remains completely unbound, as per God's promise. There’s nothing of men's copyrighted "dynamically equivalent" writings which can compare with the inspired, pure preserved Word of God, today’s vernacular Bible, the King James Bible. People don’t know what the Word of God is. They don’t understand inspiration or preservation, nor do they want to know, because the power of the lie is strong.

Thus the point which has been long in documenting and clearly made manifest is this: only a liar, a deceiver, would now continue to attempt to conflate those two options in his 'approach.'

The King James bible belongs to the man whose name it bears - King James. How can a bible which bears the name of a man can be God's Holy Word?

 

[lawrenceb]

Ok. The precious manuscripts that you argue about being "corrupt" are so close...

Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 1 Cor 5:6 KJB

...so close the manuscripts that the real difference in the KJV is the use of the latin by Erasmus and the Vulgate copies he used. Which added to the bible.... many things that were not there in other manuscripts.

The documented facts tell us otherwise. Erasmus said in his Preface (Nov. Test. Praef. Basil: Froeben, 1546, p. xi) that he consulted, not the Latin Vulgate, but these ancient Bibles. ("Sunt in quibus nostra Vulgata magis probatur editio, aut Ambrosiana lectio, quam Graeci Codices. Et tamen consentientibus omnibus Graecis examplaribus, quoniam illa mutare non licuit Latina accomodavimus, ne non responderent, quum in hoc ipsum adderentur.")

Erasmus' two most widely read books, The Praise of Folly and Enchiridion, were mainly an unbridled mockery of the activities of the Catholic church. Naturally, the Catholic church despised the writings of Erasmus. In 1559 Pope Paul IV "placed everything Erasmus had ever written on The Index of Forbidden Books" (Bainton, Roland Erasmus of Christendom. New York: Scribner's, 1969, p. 277-8).

During that period, Sebastian Frank published a world history, including an alphabetical list of heretics in the eyes of the Roman church. "Under the letter 'E' was the name "Erasmus" (Bainton, p. 257). "The Council of Trent condemned Erasmus' translation" of the Bible because it matched that of the true Christians, and did not match their corrupt Vulgate translation. (Durant, Will. The Story of Civilization: The Reformation. Vol. 6, New York: MJF Books, p. 285).

Erasmus' Greek text was based on such solid evidence that even the liberal Encyclopedia Britannica of 1910 had to admit of his Greek text, "It revealed the fact that the Vulgate [whose readings can be seen in the new versions]...was not only a second-hand document, but in places an erroneous document" (Encyclopedia Britannica. 1910-11 Vol. 9, p. 732.)

The RCC has always had its corrupted versions; it worked tirelessly, and still does, to move the masses (no pun intended) away from the historic truth of God's pure, inspired, preserved vernacular Holy Bibles. But if course this would require one to acknowledge the corrupt origin of, for example, the NIV (i.e. Jerome's corrupt Catholic Latin Vulgate), and then to move on that acknowledgment...

We note that you have not cited any primary sources in your mention of Erasmus. Apparently KJV critics have never read the complete writings of Erasmus, either in Latin or in translation. They have apparently not even read the entire writings of Bainton or Froude from which they pull quotes. We will assume they haven't read widely on this subject (or else we must conclude they are dishonest).

Either you have posted a falsehood, or I have; there is no middle ground. The detractors are counting on you being too lazy (or too deceived) to love the truth enough to perform the due diligence for yourself.

Bible critics who will ignore the evidence like the plague, will now be without excuse at the judgment. The real peril to anyone who stands and teaches is an ignorance of his own ignorance and a claim to be an authority in an area about which his knowledge is incomplete. A person must first be a learner before he is a teacher.

If you pm me, I’ll email or snail mail at my expense any or all of the primary source documentation (copies and/or originals).

BTW You buddy Dr. Logsdon...

He’s not my “buddy,” as The Holy Bible tells us repeatedly to trust no man.

...[Logsdon] did not do anything with the NASB. On their site there is a statement regarding him.

Regarding Dr, Logsdon, the NASB's Lockman Foundation is denying the foundational role played by Dr. Logsdon because he came out publicly against the NASB. Were you expecting something other than a ‘damage control’ response from NASB headquarters? When one of the wolves lets his sheep skin slip, the pack can no longer use him and thus cuts him loose. (Also, the NIV is now downplaying the role of stylist Dr. Virginia Mollenkott since she made a public disclosure of her homosexuality, goddess worship theology, use of spirit guides, tarot cards, and the I Ching.)

Here is more documentation re: Logsdon.

NASB Preface Author Renounces His Involvement

In the mid-1960s, the Moody organization hosted the kickoff conference for the NIV. However, there hasn't always been a consensus there regarding new versions. One of the past vice-presidents of Moody Bible Institute, Dr. Alfred Martin, said the theories and Greek text behind the new versions "collapse when subject to close scrutiny." He is not a fan of the NIV or NASB. One of the former pastors of Moody Church, Dr. S. Frank Logsdon, who "laid the groundwork" for the NASB said:

"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Bible...The deletions are absolutely frightening...Some of the finest people in the world believe in that Greek text, the finest leaders that we have today. You'd be surprised; if I told you, you wouldn't believe it. They haven't gone into it, just as I hadn't gone into it; [they're] just taking it for granted. At any rate we went out and started on a feasibility report, and I encouraged him [Dewey Lockman] to go ahead with it. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord, because I encouraged him to go ahead with it. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped to interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words...I'm going to talk to him [referring to Dr. George Sweeting, president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things...Friends, you can say the Authorized Version is absolutely correct. How correct? One hundred percent correct."

Graciously, Logsdon announced his rejection of his own, about to be published, NASB, to the president of the Foundation (aka The Lockman Foundation), Dewey Lockman, and his friends, the Directors, as well as the publishing and translating committees. (He then lectured frequently on the problems in the NASB. His audio lecture is available from AV Publications.) Today, the NASB's publisher (The Lockman Foundation aka The Foundation) attempts to cover up Logsdon's initial involvement and final rejection of the NASB and Amplified Bible. Truth has a way of surfacing, however. "[F]or there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed;" (Matt. 10:26). A peek behind closed doors surfaces in a book, Dealing with the Devil. Its title states that it is:

by
C.S. Lovett
A Director
The Lockman Foundation,
Producers of the Amplified Translations
New American Standard

Its introduction begins:

"The occasion was a strategic meeting of a well known Foundation with people of the translating and publishing committees for a new translation of the Bible. It was a critical session for bringing a new work to the world. Momentous decisions were before the Foundation's directors. With remarkable timing, a person spoke words which stabbed the president of the Foundation with anguish. I saw the hurt of his soul rise to his face. The spirit of the meeting changed instantly. All decisions were deferred. Now the one making the comment was a friend of mine. He is as gracious and godly a Christian as you'd hope to meet. Those words from his lips didn't sound like him at all. When I regarded his wonderful spirit and beheld the great damage wrought in the president, I was perplexed -- 'How could such a thing happen?'"

NASB Director, Lovett reveals the rest, writing,

"...The palms of my hands became sweaty. A dreadful awareness swept over me. I experienced something about Satan I hadn't realized before. No one heard the gospel tune that rang within me, but a shout was echoing...

He lives, He lives
Satan lives today
He walks with me and
Talks with me, along
Life's narrow way!"

Lovett admitted, "I heard that. It began to haunt me." Was God warning this NASB Director through these words and through Logsdon's shocking announcement of his rejection of the NASB, which he had helped to hatch? Sadly, this NASB Director ascribed it to "SATAN," instead of to the wisdom of his "gracious and godly" friend and one time pastor of Moody Memorial Church, S. Franklin Logsdon. (C.S. Lovett, Dealing with the Devil, 1967, Baldwin Park Christianity: Personal Christianity, p. 10).

The Logsdon family has carried on his passion to warn Christians about the NASB and all new versions.

The Lockman Foundation and Dewey Lockman sponsored and copyrighted the Amplified Gospel of John in 1954 and the Amplified New Testament in 1958. Zondervan then took it over and in 1962 came out with Job through Malachi. In 1964 they published Genesis through Esther. In 1965 the entire Amplified Bible was complete. Zondervan was taken over by Harper-Collins, a secular publishing house. It is the publisher of the Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey. It was in turn bought out by Rupert Murdoch, media's "prince of darkness." Therefore, Zondervan has been in secular hands for some time. One of the members of the Amplified Version committee, Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon, has renounced the Amplified Version, as well as the New American Standard. He said:

"As a member of the editorial committee in the production of the Amplified New Testament, we honestly and conscientiously felt it was a mark of intelligence to follow Westcott and Hort. Now, what you have in these books strikes terror to my heart. It proves, alarmingly, that being conscientiously wrong is a most dangerous state of being. God help us to be more cautious, lest we fall into the snares of the arch deceiver."

The books that Logsdon referred to are Which Bible? and True or False? by D. O. Fuller (available from AV Publications). These books showed Dr. Logsdon, for the first time, the corrupt nature of the Westcott and Hort Greek text underlying new versions, which includes the Amplified, the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, NAB, New Jerusalem Bible, The Message, and the New Living Translation.

The particular problem with the Amplified Bible is that it is guilty of adding to God's word. It is called an "expanded translation." It is in direct violation of Revelation 22:18 which says:

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" Proverbs 30:6 adds: "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

We are forbidden to add anything to the word of God, and the Amplified Bible translation has done just that.

The Amplified Bible was actually written by a woman, Mrs. Siewert, and the Lockman Foundation essentially rubber stamped her work. Since it was written by a woman, is it any wonder it omits "holy" from 2 Peter 1:21 which says, "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?

How can it 'amplify' the Bible, when it removes so many important words such as "Lord," "God" and "the Lord Jesus Christ"?

Amplifying 'rock music' does not make it better. Neither does amplifying the Bible with hot air from corrupt lexicons, such as Thayer's, then letting the air out by omitting God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

And using stuff right out of the book New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger is laughable. She has been debunked for years.

As I said, I trust no man (or wo-man). Attempting to “debunk” Riplinger is a strawman’s argument and a waste of our valuable time. Don’t be caught playing the game of fools. Rather, either perform due diligence yourself or forfeit your claim to a piece of the action.

Besides do you believe in unicorns like the KJV says?

unicorn = “one-horned.” Simply, the rhino and wild ox are two animals that fit that description...

Also Satyr?

You would again deny the possibility out-of-hand...

I am not sure how there could be a 'pure and perfect' bible.

One either believes his promise that he has preserved his pure word for ever, or you do not believe it.

You can translate things differently while conveying the same meaning.

Who, again, is our ‘translator’?

You can't 'perfectly' translate Greek or Hebrew.

....nor should we! Greek was for the Greeks - not us.

Please show me in scripture where I'm told to brush up on my Greek and Hebrew language knowledge.

Again, ancient Greek was for ancient Greeks. Either God has kept his promise and preserved his pure inspired word for ever, or he has broken that promise and you are now his spokesman.

There existed a true original Greek (i.e. Majority Text, Textus Receptus). It is not in print and never will be, because it is unnecessary. No one on the planet speaks first century Koine Greek, so God is finished with it. He needs no 'Dead Bible Society' to translate it into "everyday English," using the same corrupt secularized lexicons used by the TNIV, NIV, NASB and HCSB. God has not called readers to check his Holy Bible for errors. He has called his Holy Bible to check us for errors.

You can keep striving and ever-learning how to write and speak those languages in the belief that maybe some day you too can become a "more complete and enriched" scholar! Sadly, such will never help anyone to truthfully declare and explain God's Word.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous... proud...unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection...false accusers...despisers of those that are good...highminded...Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

One, you have the issue of language. You cannot 'purely' or 'perfectly' translate from one language to the next. You can convey the meaning, but language is more art. When translating Greek or Hebrew, different people will translate it different ways.

translation = interpretation = translation

And which “Greek” text would you presume to appropriate? You don’t know, and further, you can’t risk speculating here because the truth is that those one-man-band texts and their ‘editors’ are also demonstrably researchably in the pit.

Where does the bible claim to be a final authority or that there would only be one translation per language?

There can be many “translations per language”!

All born again believers agree that the Holy Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The problem today is that folks do not discern the genuine word from the counterfeits.

There have been MANY pure, inspired, preserved translations of Scripture, and in many languages - the common (aka vernacular) bible provided to the common man in the common language of the day - which has always been God’s pattern. The copyrighted NIV and its clones, however, are not among them, because they have been profusely proven as originating from the 1% corrupted manuscripts that came out of Alexandria, Egypt and rightly rejected as corrupt by all but the Roman Catholic Church.

It is the denial of the scripture's absolute authority, and not its difficulty of interpretation, that has resulted in the various divisions of Christ's congregation. The Gospel is simple; it’s just that men make it complicated.

It’s not about “experience,” or “tradition” or “interpretation.” Such are vexing snares, because once an absolute standard has been abandoned, there is no logic for determining right from wrong other than human logic. Whenever a congregation abandons the absolute standard of Scripture, the outcome of all religious and moral decisions is left in the hands of men who will inevitably be influenced by society.

Do you believe the bible is the literal words of God? Or do you believe it is the word of God written by the words of men through God's inspiration?

God’s word is inspired by God. All scripture is given by inspiration of God; “written by the words of men” is not mentioned. Any reference to ‘translators’ is what is known as a strawman argument, a diversion from the truth of the matter. Truth has never been about the translators. The living word of God (not man's "opinion" or dead scholarship) tells us that it is God who has preserved his inspired, pure, word for ever. God has always provided and maintained it outside of the foul realm of man's devices (e.g. lex-icons, corrupted manuscripts, unsaved "scholars," et al). And God did it again in Acts 2, Pentecost, when his pure, inspired, preserved for ever word went out in many languages, as it remains today in our vernacular Bibles. The sign above his head was written in three languages.

The living Word of God has been under attack since Day One. No one should be surprised that Satan has his counterfeit "bibles." This is to be expected. Either you believe God's promise, or you believe men's words and their pile of inventions.

God told us his word is pure, inspired and preserved, so the relevant question is this: Is what you have in your hands now the genuine article (i.e. do you have the scriptures)?

You misunderstand and thus reach false conclusions. God's spirit has preserved his pure inspired word in countless vernacular Bibles. (Satan also has his counterfeits.) We have many such vernacular Bibles in many languages. Speaking English is not a requirement.

For instance, there are actually about a dozen vernacular German Bibles, all inspired.

The KJB is today's vernacular (meaning "common") inspired Bible. Yesteryear, it wasn't; there were other vernacular Holy Bibles.

Spanish folks, for example, have the inspired word of God in their vernacular Bibles. Likewise, the Portuguese, German, French, etc. This has always been God's pattern: give the COMMON MAN the COMMON BIBLE in the COMMON LANGUAGE of the day to do one thing -- evangelize the world. Today, that vernacularBible is the uncopyrighted, free discourse King James Bible.

Those vernacular (meaning "common") Bibles were God's pure, preserved words for the Hebrew and Greek speaking people of that time.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. (Psalm 12:6-8 KJB).

Either you believe God's Word when he says that his kept Word is pure and preserved from this generation forever, or you believe some men's copyrighted "dynamically equivalent" stories about God's Word.

Wanna-be scholars hate that truth, as it pre-empts their attempts to be the sole arbiters of The Word of God.

God's pattern has always been the same. He has always given the COMMON MAN the COMMON BIBLE written in the COMMON LANGUAGE of the day to do one thing: evangelize the world. Today, that vernacular Bible is the uncopyrighted, free discourse King James Bible.

God has preserved His words through the broad flow of history. People today say, "How dare you King James-only people! You just want to force people to translate the KJV into other languages!" But look at the NIV: That perversion is being translated all over the world, and it is STILL the NIV! The NV in Spanish, for example, is not very different at all from the NIV. The Dutch, French and other versions are still NIVs! And the NIV is most definitely an English Bible.

So the question is not "Shall we translate the Bible from English into other languages?" The question is "Which Bible shall we use to translate God's words into the various languages of the world?" I know the King James Bible is God's preserved words in English. So my choice is made. May God help the translators of the world to use God's words, and not a perversion that will only bring them into judgment before our Almighty God.

BTW, the Roman Catholic church did not give us the Bible. They have, however, from the onset, been fundamentally involved in perverting it.

The KJV was done through the taxes collected by the people. New translations cannot be funded by governments.

Why not? Because the present government is no longer a Godly government! So what on earth are we doing submitting to such an ungodly (and thus satanic) authority?

They are objectively older manuscripts. Whether or not you think they are the best authority is up to you. I don't think there ever was an 'original' version for almost all of the NT texts. I guess that might be believed if someone thinks the writers were being told by God what to write instead of being infallible inspired.

God never said the writers were “infallibly inspired”!

And the “Originals Only” heresy is a relatively new arrival on the apostacy platter. If you want the details, just ask.

Speaking of heresy, according to the Bible, open heresy harbors hidden sin. The Bible says,

"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." 1 Cor. 11:19 KJB

The heresy of denying the inspiration of our Holy Bible is often a manifestation of underlying "uncleanness."

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." Matt. 23:27, 28

Those who do not "tremble at his word" (Isa. 66:5) are capable of anything.

What evidence do you have that they are corrupt?
I would think the later manuscripts would be more prone to corruption. I don't think any have been altered that compromises their moral authority, but there are differences.

Yours is a relatively easy request to fulfill. Yet we have much on our plate already. You tell me what specific documentation you would require, and I will oblige to the best of my ability.

Thanks for your posts.

 

[New Legacy]

If you're a translation nut (I kind of am) I would recommend the Artscroll Series Old Testament (Tanakh in Hebrew) Bible. It's direct Hebrew to English (like typical Jewish/Hebrew books it's Hebrew on one page and English on another).

I haven't gone as translation crazy with the New Testament yet but I typically bounce between the King James Version and a newer rendition.

I also recommend visiting various university web sites to see what some biblical and antiquities teachers recommend.

Sure wish I read Greek sometimes!

What do you mean 'direct'? There is no such thing. Translations are translations. There are different styles. None are 'direct'.

 

[New Legacy]

Not sure why you combined my post with another person.

The RCC has always had its corrupted versions; it worked tirelessly, and still does, to move the masses (no pun intended) away from the historic truth of God's pure, inspired, preserved vernacular Holy Bibles. But if course this would require one to acknowledge the corrupt origin of, for example, the NIV (i.e. Jerome's corrupt Catholic Latin Vulgate), and then to move on that acknowledgment...

Although this was addressed to the other guy - What is your evidence that it was corrupted?

One either believes his promise that he has preserved his pure word for ever, or you do not believe it.

Oh I believe the bible is pure and perfect in the sense of conveying the original meaning. That is different from the idea of a 'perfect' bible. When you translate the original you can end up with different wordings while conveying the original meaning. Also, the Gospels were more or less 'developed' over time, rather than being written all at once. This is why Mark has three different endings. Even things which one might assume to be written all at once, like epistles, are sometimes compilations of letters. Which is the 'pure' epistle, the original two that Paul wrote, or the single one the Christians spliced together and shared with other communities?

Who, again, is our ‘translator’?

I am speaking in general. Whenever you translate something, there are different ways of expressing it. Both forms and even differences in words still convey the same meaning.

....nor should we! Greek was for the Greeks - not us.

The bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, not English.This is a problem because you cannot perfectly translate Greek into English. This could only happen if English and Greek (or Hebrew) used the same structure and every word has an exact and only equivalent in the other.

Please show me in scripture where I'm told to brush up on my Greek and Hebrew language knowledge.

I didn't advocate that. It does help to understand language so you don't get the impression that there is only one way of translating the Greek into English.

Again, ancient Greek was for ancient Greeks. Either God has kept his promise and preserved his pure inspired word for ever, or he has broken that promise and you are now his spokesman.

You are arguing for a perfect almost 'word for word' translation which cannot exist. Language does not work that way. That does not mean the meaning of the scriptures isn't conveyed. I believe they are. The word 'perfect' is problematic because if you take 30 scholars and have them translate the same passage, they can translate it 30 different ways. They would all be right. There would not be a 'perfect' translation of the passage from one of the scholars. They would all be valid. They would all convey the same thing, even if the words or wording is different.

There existed a true original Greek (i.e. Majority Text, Textus Receptus). It is not in print and never will be, because it is unnecessary. No one on the planet speaks first century Koine Greek, so God is finished with it.

The Greek is the original language, so it is important.
Also, the Textus Receptus is not a 'true original Greek'. It a Greek form, a much later form at that, some of which came from the Vulgate.

He needs no 'Dead Bible Society' to translate it into "everyday English," using the same corrupt secularized lexicons used by the TNIV, NIV, NASB and HCSB. God has not called readers to check his Holy Bible for errors. He has called his Holy Bible to check us for errors.

Circular logic. You are arguing that the KJV is the right version because God does not need us to check it for errors. That supposes that the KJV is the version God officially endores and there is no evidence of that. Translation is the work of man, so it is important that we look at what man does to avoid errors.

You can keep striving and ever-learning how to write and speak those languages in the belief that maybe some day you too can become a "more complete and enriched" scholar! Sadly, such will never help anyone to truthfully declare and explain God's Word.

Knowing the Greek and Hebrew is actually very helpful. It allows you to understand what was originally conveyed, rather than obsessing about the English translation.

Greek and English are very different languages and function very differently. There is no 'perfect' translation. There are just translations.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous... proud...unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection...false accusers...despisers of those that are good...highminded...Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Disagreeing with you is not disagreeing with God.
The problem here is that you hold onto a belief which isn't based on anything in the bible and does not acknowledge the realities of language.

translation = interpretation = translation

And which “Greek” text would you presume to appropriate? You don’t know, and further, you can’t risk speculating here because the truth is that those one-man-band texts and their ‘editors’ are also demonstrably researchably in the pit.

You are saying I don't know, so you do know? The problem is that you desperately want to believe that you have an interpretation that is exactly the same word for word as the Greek and Hebrew - and that is impossible.

There can be many “translations per language”!

All born again believers agree that the Holy Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The problem today is that folks do not discern the genuine word from the counterfeits.

The problem is that the bible never claims to be the final authority.
I also don't see how 'born again believers' are an authority to be stating what is the authority. Christians never called themselves born again until the term was created by mid 20th Century evangelical Americans. Yep, that's right, from 33AD to ~1960 no one called themselves "born again believers/Christians". Did you know that?

There have been MANY pure, inspired, preserved translations of Scripture, and in many languages - the common (aka vernacular) bible provided to the common man in the common language of the day - which has always been God’s pattern. The copyrighted NIV and its clones, however, are not among them, because they have been profusely proven as originating from the 1% corrupted manuscripts that came out of Alexandria, Egypt and rightly rejected as corrupt by all but the Roman Catholic Church.

They aren't preserved word for word, because that's impossible. You can convey the same meaning using different words. I think the meaning of verses are preserved, but the exact structure and wording isn't, because language does not work that way.
Also what is your evidence that other manuscripts are corrupted, other than 'cuz you say so?

And everyone else huh?A Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, CoC.. oh heck.. pretty much everyone but KJVO-baptists and fundamentalist/evangelicals use everything BUT the KJV.

It is the denial of the scripture's absolute authority, and not its difficulty of interpretation, that has resulted in the various divisions of Christ's congregation. The Gospel is simple; it’s just that men make it complicated.

Scripture doesn't claim to be the sole and only authority. Obviously interpretation is an issue because Christians disagree on pretty much everything. Even born again bible believing sola scriptura KJV-onlyists would have 5 different views on an issue if 4 of them got together.

It’s not about “experience,” or “tradition” or “interpretation.”

Actually that is exactly why people believe what they do. Which is why there are so many beliefs.

Such are vexing snares, because once an absolute standard has been abandoned, there is no logic for determining right from wrong other than human logic. Whenever a congregation abandons the absolute standard of Scripture, the outcome of all religious and moral decisions is left in the hands of men who will inevitably be influenced by society.

Going by personal interpretation of scripture is hardly an 'absolute standard' since it leads to people believing absolutely everything and anything.

God’s word is inspired by God. All scripture is given by inspiration of God; “written by the words of men” is not mentioned. Any reference to ‘translators’ is what is known as a strawman argument, a diversion from the truth of the matter.

You didn't answer the question. Is the bible the words (plural) of God, or the word of God written through the words of men by inspiration?
If it is the words of God - that is, God told the writers every Greek and Hebrew word to write, then the bible is like the Quran. If that is the case, then like in Islam, the bible must be read in the original language. No translation can ever be on par.
If, however, the bible is the word of God revealed through the words of inspired men, then the bible is about meaning - what the words convey, rather than the exact words themselves. In that way, translations render the same meaning, preserving the purity of scripture, even if the same words are not used.

I don't think you know what is a strawman. The original documents were inspired by God - words of men. Nevertheless, your view supposes that God inspires translators. The bible does not suggest this. This also creates an issue of which translators are 'inspired'.

Truth has never been about the translators. The living word of God (not man's "opinion" or dead scholarship) tells us that it is God who has preserved his inspired, pure, word for ever. God has always provided and maintained it outside of the foul realm of man's devices (e.g. lex-icons, corrupted manuscripts, unsaved "scholars," et al). And God did it again in Acts 2, Pentecost, when his pure, inspired, preserved for ever word went out in many languages, as it remains today in our vernacular Bibles. The sign above his head was written in three languages.

Except one can translate a single passage is a myriad of ways.

The living Word of God has been under attack since Day One. No one should be surprised that Satan has his counterfeit "bibles." This is to be expected. Either you believe God's promise, or you believe men's words and their pile of inventions.

And your evidence that your translation is the right one is what, exactly?

God told us his word is pure, inspired and preserved, so the relevant question is this: Is what you have in your hands now the genuine article (i.e. do you have the scriptures)?

That is a question you ought to be asking yourself. The problem is that you think there is only one way of translating something. Thus any other translations must be 'wrong'. Although you have no reason to believe or suggest your translation is exactly what God wanted.

You misunderstand and thus reach false conclusions. God's spirit has preserved his pure inspired word in countless vernacular Bibles. (Satan also has his counterfeits.) We have many such vernacular Bibles in many languages. Speaking English is not a requirement.

For instance, there are actually about a dozen vernacular German Bibles, all inspired.

If they are perfect and pure, then why are their dozens? There are different bibles because - there a different ways of translating. I am sure someone in German right now is arguing about the purity of one translation and say that all other translations are evil and corrupt

The KJB is today's vernacular (meaning "common") inspired Bible. Yesteryear, it wasn't; there were other vernacular Holy Bibles.

Spanish folks, for example, have the inspired word of God in their vernacular Bibles. Likewise, the Portuguese, German, French, etc. This has always been God's pattern: give the COMMON MAN the COMMON BIBLE in the COMMON LANGUAGE of the day to do one thing -- evangelize the world. Today, that vernacularBible is the uncopyrighted, free discourse King James Bible.

Those vernacular (meaning "common") Bibles were God's pure, preserved words for the Hebrew and Greek speaking people of that time.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted. (Psalm 12:6-8 KJB).

Either you believe God's Word when he says that his kept Word is pure and preserved from this generation forever, or you believe some men's copyrighted "dynamically equivalent" stories about God's Word.

You believe that there is only one 'right' translation in English while pointing out the fact that many other languages have many different translations.
You don't see the problem there?
I believe that all these versions carry the same meaning and that God's word is preserved. You argue that English must have only one right translation and that any other version is 'correcting God'.

Wanna-be scholars hate that truth, as it pre-empts their attempts to be the sole arbiters of The Word of God.

Zealots too.

God's pattern has always been the same. He has always given the COMMON MAN the COMMON BIBLE written in the COMMON LANGUAGE of the day to do one thing: evangelize the world. Today, that vernacular Bible is the uncopyrighted, free discourse King James Bible.

Common language? The KJV is not written in the common language. It is written in an old form of English no one speaks anymore.
Your argument is that the KJV is the one and only translation - without any evidence of why that is or why there can only be one translation. The bible had been translated into English before KJV - so why is this particular version the only valid one?

God has preserved His words through the broad flow of history. People today say, "How dare you King James-only people! You just want to force people to translate the KJV into other languages!" But look at the NIV: That perversion is being translated all over the world, and it is STILL the NIV! The NV in Spanish, for example, is not very different at all from the NIV. The Dutch, French and other versions are still NIVs! And the NIV is most definitely an English Bible.

I am not an NIV fan, so, this means nothing to me.

[quopte]So the question is not "Shall we translate the Bible from English into other languages?" The question is "Which Bible shall we use to translate God's words into the various languages of the world?" I know the King James Bible is God's preserved words in English. So my choice is made. May God help the translators of the world to use God's words, and not a perversion that will only bring them into judgment before our Almighty God.[/quote]

And your reason for believing that the KJV is the one and only valid translation?

BTW, the Roman Catholic church did not give us the Bible. They have, however, from the onset, been fundamentally involved in perverting it.

If you have an English bible, then the text came from either the Catholics, Orthodox or Coptics.

The Textus Receptus you love so much? It was from Erasmus, a Catholic priest, relying on Bzyzantine (Orthodox) texts and the Latin Vulgate (Catholic).

God never said the writers were “infallibly inspired”!

And the “Originals Only” heresy is a relatively new arrival on the apostacy platter. If you want the details, just ask.

I don't believe the originals exist.

 

[lawrenceb]

Oh I believe the bible is pure and perfect in the sense of conveying the original meaning. That is different from the idea of a 'perfect' bible. When you translate the original you can end up with different wordings while conveying the original meaning.

“When you translate the original”? Yes, God's inspired word has been accurately reproduced (e.g. the KJB), but the 'original languages' pretext holds absolutely no import over God's inspired vernacular Bibles.

I am speaking in general. Whenever you translate something, there are different ways of expressing it. Both forms and even differences in words still convey the same meaning.

The topic of Bible inspiration and infallibility can only be discussed with reference to actual words and verses. A fog of emotional steam, that carries no substance, precedes comments such as, 'I don't believe the KJV corrects 'the original Greek' or 'I don't believe the KJV corrects the 'Majority Text' or the 'Textus Receptus.' The desire to appear intelligent or superior by referring to 'the Greek' and downplaying the common man's Bible, exposes a naivety concerning textual history and those documents which today's pseudo-intellectuals call 'the critical text,' 'the original Greek,' the 'Majority Text,' or the 'Textus Receptus.' Aas I said, there existed a true original Greek (i.e. Majority Text, Textus Receptus). It is not in print and never will be, because it is unnecessary. No one on the planet speaks first century Koine Greek, so God is finished with it. He needs no 'Dead Bible Society' to translate it into "everyday English," using the same corrupt secularized lexicons used by the TNIV, NIV, NASB and HCSB. God has not called readers to check his Holy Bible for errors. He has called his Holy Bible to check us for errors.

The bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, not English.This is a problem because you cannot perfectly translate Greek into English

Who “cannot”? You? Or? Again, there is misunderstanding regarding the scriptural definition of “translation.”

To illustrate one’s level of ignorance (not by slur, but by scriptural and scholarly definition), one need ask only one question:

Which “original Greek"? Is it Aleph1, Aleph2, Aleph3, B1, B2, B3, C, L, W, Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort, Scrivener’s, Alfred, Griesbach, Elzevir, Erasmus, Tischendorf, Lachman, Souter, von Soden, Hodge-Farstad, Nestle’s-Aland (If so whichedition between 1 and 26? which printing of the 26th?), USB-Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren (Which edition between 1 and 47?), or the Greek-English Diglot for the Use of Translators?

Dear reader, if you are convinced most Christians use a recently published version of the bible, such as the NIV (debuted in 1973), NASB, Living Bible, etc. - what you really mean is - most that you have come in contact with, at your fellowship, in the nineteen nineties, in the U.S.A., use it. However, throughout the 2000-year history of the New Testament, people using a textlike those of the new versions, were in a mathematically infinitesimal minority. So, if you want to be lined up with most Christians ‘when the saints go marching in’, don’t take a quick spin of the head (like the girl in The Exorcist) to see what’s happening around you. Take a long look back through history and around the world. It is safer.

The survival of ‘the’ original Greek New Testament is a dream which dissolves with the discovery that not all manuscripts and critical editions are alike. Those applying this term to a Greektext on the bookstore shelf or internet site are unacquainted with the volatile state of the text.

There are over 5366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. A corrupt few give a view of the text much like a shifting kaleidoscope. They contain several hundred thousand variant readings. In an attempt to marry these ‘moody’ manuscripts, the ‘Wheel of Fortune’ is whirled and readings are selected for inclusion in what scholars call a ‘critical edition of the Greektext.’ There are more than two dozen of these texts, each a ‘prize’ stuffed with between 5000 and 8000 variations. As one scholar puts it, “...equally competent critics often arrive at contrary conclusions as to the same variation.”

The overwhelming majority (over 99%) of these manuscripts, lectionaries and writers agree generally with each other as to the readings of the New Testament. Manuscripts from the second century (P66) down through the Middle Ages (A.D. 1500) attest to the readings of this 'Majority Text', as Kurt Aland terms it. Dean Burgeon, who found this 'Majority Text' in most of the early writers collated, calls it "The Traditional Text.' It is also called the Syrian Text, the Byzantine Text and the K (Kappa) or Common Text.

This text type is available today in English in the Authorized Version, or as it is called in the United States, the King James Version. It's 809,000,000 copies since 1611, in 300 languages, demonstrates the continuum of this 'Majority Text'. {Unfortunately, the new versions are not based on this "Majority Text', but on the dissenting handful of manuscripts which disagree with the Majority).

You are arguing for a perfect almost 'word for word' translation which cannot exist. Language does not work that way.

I “argue” for no-thing; I simply take God’s word on it. Conversely, when one argues from the flesh, one cannot abide perfection.

That does not mean the meaning of the scriptures isn't conveyed. I believe they are. The word 'perfect' is problematic because if you take 30 scholars and have them translate the same passage, they can translate it 30 different ways. They would all be right. There would not be a 'perfect' translation of the passage from one of the scholars. They would all be valid. They would all convey the same thing, even if the words or wording is different.

The ‘if you take 30 scholars” route is the predictable path of following the flesh rather than the Spirit.

The Greek is the original language, so it is important.
Also, the Textus Receptus is not a 'true original Greek'. It a Greek form, a much later form at that, some of which came from the Vulgate.

Which “Vulgate”? Again, a sweeping generalization born of a lack of due diligence.

Translation is the work of man, so it is important that we look at what man does to avoid errors.

There’s your problem - looking at man. The pretext is wrong i.e. “translation is the work of man,” so the result will also be in error.

Greek and English are very different languages and function very differently. There is no 'perfect' translation. There are just translations.

In man’s world of textual criticism, that is a true statement. In God’s kingdom, that is blasphemy.

The problem here is that you hold onto a belief which isn't based on anything in the bible and does not acknowledge the realities of language.

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

The problem is that you desperately want to believe that you have an interpretation that is exactly the same word for word as the Greek and Hebrew - and that is impossible.

I don’t have an “interpretation;” I have the Real Thing, the word of God.

The problem is that the bible never claims to be the final authority.

Jesus IS the Word. The Holy Bible IS absolute truth. Any “claims” made and it becomes once-removed.

I also don't see how 'born again believers' are an authority to be stating what is the authority. Christians never called themselves born again until the term was created by mid 20th Century evangelical Americans. Yep, that's right, from 33AD to ~1960 no one called themselves "born again believers/Christians". Did you know that?

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3 KJB

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. John 3:7 KJB

They aren't preserved word for word, because that's impossible.

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Mat 19:26 KJB

And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. Mar 10:27 KJB

And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. Luk 18:27 KJB

If it is the words of God - that is, God told the writers every Greek and Hebrew word to write, then the bible is like the Quran. If that is the case, then like in Islam, the bible must be read in the original language. No translation can ever be on par.
If, however, the bible is the word of God revealed through the words of inspired men, then the bible is about meaning - what the words convey, rather than the exact words themselves. In that way, translations render the same meaning, preserving the purity of scripture, even if the same words are not used.

Again, it all depends on who your translator is - God or men.

Nevertheless, your view supposes that God inspires translators.

No, I never said such; this is the crux of your misunderstanding. All scripture is given by inspiration of God; there’s no mention of any “inspired translators” there!

Truth has never been about the translators. The living word of God (not man's "opinion" or dead scholarship) tells us that it is God who has preserved his inspired, pure, word for ever. God has always provided and maintained it outside of the foul realm of man's devices (e.g. lex-icons, corrupted manuscripts, unsaved "scholars," et al). And God did it again in Acts 2; Pentecost, when his pure, inspired, preserved for ever word went out in many languages, as it remains today in our vernacular Bibles. The sign above his head was written in three languages.

Except one can translate a single passage is a myriad of ways.

Again, it depends who your translator is...

The problem is that you think there is only one way of translating something.

No. Rather, there can be only one Translator...

Although you have no reason to believe or suggest your translation is exactly what God wanted.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalms 12:6, 7 KJB

...there are actually about a dozen vernacular German Bibles, all inspired.

If they are perfect and pure, then why are their dozens? There are different bibles because - there a different ways of translating.

You are conflating apples with oranges; such confusion vanishes when we accept that there can be only one Translator...

You believe that there is only one 'right' translation in English while pointing out the fact that many other languages have many different translations.

No. Rather, there is only one Translator - and it isn’t your textual critics.

I believe that all these versions carry the same meaning and that God's word is preserved.

They contradict teach other! And men even claim ownership of them (e.g. copyright law).

Common language? The KJV is not written in the common language. It is written in an old form of English no one speaks anymore.

Cynics usually tell us that the King James Bible is Elizabethan English and --

'We don't speak like that any more.'

The fact is -- neither did those living in 1611. Shakespeare's plays, written during the same period, did not use the 'eth' and 'est' endings. Read the 'Preface to the KJV,' written before 1611 by the translators. It does not sound like the King James Bible. It says, "your very name," not 'thy very name.'

The KJV translators used 'thee,' 'ye,' 'thy,' 'thine,' and 'eth' and 'est' endings (on verbs) because these are the only way to show important grammatical and theological distinctions, clearly seen in the Greek and Hebrew text, and seen in other foreign vernacular Bibles. KJV English is Biblical English, not archaic English. It is much easier to learn than truly archaic koine Greek.

Removal of these 'est' and 'eth' endings takes the English Bible one step further away from the Greek and Hebrew Bible.

The marked difference in style between the text of the King James Bible and its preface verifies that it was not written in the style of the period but with precise words characteristic of the lawful document that the Bible is. It matches Greek, Hebrew and pure foreign Bibles which likewise have inflected endings ('est' for second person and 'eth' for third person). It uses many other means to accurately convey meaning without ambiguity.

New versions boast of their substitution of the word "you" for the so-called archaic "ye," "thou," and "thee," but do not notice that the KJV uses the word "you" 2,000 times for the plural objective case (e.g. "I tell you the truth"). It distinguishes "ye" (plural nominative), '"thou" (singular nominative) and "thee" (singular objective) when needed. By using those particular renderings, the KJV reader knows exactly to whom the word is referring. Other languages also have these fine distinctions (Greek, Spanish, Frrench, etc.).

If Jesus walked into a room with a married couple and said, "Ye are of your father the devil," the husband could not say, "He is talking to you, dear," because "ye" is plural. In certain places in the Bible, such as Matthew 16 and other places, the singular and the plural become very important. In a recent United Bible Society newsletter for translators, a contributor recommended the KJV because of its preciseness in this regard. In Awe of Thy Word elaborates in great detail.

Your argument is that the KJV is the one and only translation - without any evidence of why that is or why there can only be one translation. The bible had been translated into English before KJV - so why is this particular version the only valid one?

In this circumstance, it would be a simpler task to abundantly prove which “versions” are NOT the Holy Bible.

The Textus Receptus you love so much? It was from Erasmus, a Catholic priest, relying on Bzyzantine (Orthodox) texts and the Latin Vulgate (Catholic).

Erasmus was not Catholic in theology, and he did not consult the Latin Vulgate.

You’ve implied that Erasmus was a Catholic in theology and therefore his printing of the Greek NT was likewise imbued with Catholicism. That implication is an utter fabrication. What follows is a mere sampling of the documented truth of the matter -- that Erasmus left the convent at age 20 and did not print a Greek NT until decades later.

"I must and I will be free," Erasmus wrote (Froude, The Life and the Letters of Erasmus: Lectures Delivered at Oxford 1893-4, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1899, pp. 57, 21).

For the remainder of his life he did not wear "the habit of the Augustinians," nor live in a "monastery." "He may have been twenty when he left the convent." "In all of his bulky correspondence he never once mentioned having said the mass." (Froude, p. 21; Roland H. Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969, pp. 103, 244, et al.). "[T]here is no record that he ever exercised the priestly functions, and monasticism was one of the chief objects of his attack in his lifelong assault upon the evils of the Church" (The New Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. IV, p. 164).

"He was free for the first time in his life..." (Froude, The Life and Letters, pp. 21-22). At this time he was in his middle to late twenties. The New Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia states, "From this time on Erasmus led the life of an independent scholar, independent of country, of academic ties, of religious allegiance, of everything that could interfere with the free development of his intellect and the freedom of his literary expression...holding himself aloof from all entangling obligations... (vol. IV, p. 164).

Erasmus spoke of both Catholic and other theologians, "[W]hose brains are the rottenest, intellects the dullest, doctrines the thorniest, manners the brutalest, life the foulest, speech the spitefulest, hearts the blackest that I have ever encountered in the world...theologians. They are a proud, susceptible race...They live in the third heaven, adoring their own persons and disdaining the poor crawlers upon earth. They are surrounded by a bodyguard of definitions..." (Froude, The Life and Letters, pp. 70, 130). (These 'definitions' have been embalmed in Greek lexicons and haunt the pages of today's new versions. They may even materialize in KJV churches, with the magic incantation, 'That word a-c-t-u-a-l-l-y means...')

At the age of 40, Erasmus became the world's leading authority on the Greek language and the Greek New Testament. As such, he was hired to teach Greek at Cambridge University. He had already declined invitations to many professorships in Europe (Durant, Will, The Story of Civilization: The Reformation, vol. 6, New York: MJF Books, 1957, p. 275 et al). Eight years before the printing of the Greek New Testament, its composition was central in his thinking.

Erasmus was surrounded with Bible manuscripts from his childhood in the 1460s, until the publication of his Greek Text in 1516. This is over 40 years! He worked for a dozen years on the text itself.

Froude agrees, writing, "Through all these struggling years he had been patiently labouring at his New Testament..." (Froude, The Life and Letters, p. 119).

KJV critics love to pretend that Erasmus hurriedly put his Greek New Testament together. False assertions, repeated over and over ad nauseum, state that Erasmus had only a few Greek manuscripts. The Cambridge History of the Bible affirms, regarding Erasmus' Greek NT: "It corresponds to the manuscript tradition which in fact prevailed in the Greek church; and not until the end of the nineteenth century were editions proposed that differed [Westcott & Hort] other than on points of detail" (vol. 2, p. 499).

Kenneth W. Clark, the scholar who has examined more Greek manuscripts than most, admits, "We should not attribute to Erasmus the creation of a 'received text,' but only the transmission from a manuscript text, already commonly received, to a printed form, in which this text would continue to prevail for three centuries" (The Gentile Buias and Other Essays, The Erasmian Notes on Codex 2, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980, p. 168.)

Today there are over 5200 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. KJV critics ignore the fact that over 99% agree with Erasmus' Greek New Testament and the KJV. Less than one percent (.008) agree with the odd omissions and changes in the TNIV, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NRSV, NLB, CEV, NCV, NAB, and NJB. The agreement of this tiny minority is far from unanimous on many changes.

Were Erasmus alive today, he would find that, in the main, he had managed to match almost all of the over 5200 Greek manuscripts, and wisely ignore the other 44 corrupt ones. (If these critics had taken a course in Statistics in graduate school, they would know that guesses like this are statistically impossible, given the fact that the Greek New Testament has about 140,521 words.) Without the preservation of the text by God, try guessing all of them for yourself.

Here are some of the deceivers who have probably shaped your falsehoods concerning Erasmus:

William Combs
James White
Doug Kutilek
Robert Morey
Dan Corner

Wolves such as these are paid to give unwary readers the false impression that:

1) The text that Erasmus used is not representative of the majority of Greek New Testament texts (over 5200) extant today, which it is.

2) The Greek text of Erasmus began in the 1400s, which it did not.

3) Erasmus was a Catholic in theology, which he was not.

These deceivers also try to give the readers the false impression that these men (Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza) 'created' this text, rather than merely PRINTING the Greek text that was received everywhere. Erasmus' Greek New Testament text was a mirror of the handwritten Greek texts which were used before the advent of the printing press. Erasmus was merely the first to PRINT IT, PUBLISH IT AND CIRCULATE IT, in the new printed format.

Critics often assert that 'Erasmus did not have the manuscripts we have today.' In fact, he had access to every reading currently extant, and rejected those matching the Catholic Vulgate (and the TNIV, NIV, ESV, HCSB, and NASB today).

I don't believe the originals exist.

It wouldn’t matter to the born again remnant if they did exist, because we still have God’s promise of inspiration and preservation.

God obviously doesn’t value any “originals,” in detailing at least three translations within scripture itself! So neither should we.

Basically, you’re asking the wrong question. It’s not about any ”translation” per se, as the King James Bible describes several translations of scripture within itself. It’s about whether we believe God’s promise (Psalm 12:7) that he has preserved his pure inspired word for ever, and has made available that pure inspired word to every man in his own language for ever (Acts chap. 2).It has gotten so weird in the last 150 years that in order to say that you believe in the Bible, you have to say, "I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrancy of the -original autographs."

But what in the world is an "original autograph?" Well, if you take notes in church, that is your original autograph. That's your first copy, the one you write with your own hands.
So we ask: "Did God ever write anything down?" Yes, of course. On Mount Sinai, God gave Moses tables of stone "written by the finger of God." Now that is a real "original autograph!" What happened to those tables?

When Moses went down and saw the people sinning, he was so angry that he threw the tables down and broke them. He became the first person to break all Ten Commandments at once!

God made him cut out stones for a second set and God gave him His Words a second time. Now, was that second set of tablets inspired? Was it the words of God? Yes! But it wasn't the original autograph. It was a copy.

When Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, he included the Ten Commandments. Was that the original copy? No, it was a third copy. God knew that Moses was going to break the first set, the first thing God ever wrote that man had seen in all of creation.
God does not care about original autographs.

Later Jeremiah's scroll of prophecy was cut up by King Jehoiakim and burned in his fireplace. The next one Jeremiah dictated ended up in the Euphrates river! (See Jeremiah 36 and 51.) The earliest one he kept was the third copy. Did God care about these "original autographs?"

So, what is God saying in Psalms 12:6-7? Did He really preserve His words "from this generation for ever"? Is Jesus right that "my words shall not pass away" (Matt 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33)?

If God's inspired words were only in the "original autographs," then we do not have the real words of God, so He didn't keep His promise.

But God keeps His promises. So where can we look for the real words of God? All we have are copies and translations of copies. How can we know which copies are God's preserved words for us?

Gleason L. Archer was an important author to me when I was in Bible College. He gave good reasons for my faith. But, look at what Archer said about the Bible: "But what about the text of the Bible as we now possess it?... It would take nothing short of a miracle to insure the inerrancy of a copy of an original manuscript."

Well, God is a God of miracles! The second copy was like the first; the third copy was like the second, and the 826th copy was like the 825th. Because, God is a God who keeps His words. But He doesn't care about the original copy.

But God does care about two things: accurate copies and accurate translations. And we can look through history at thousands of copies and translations to see how consistently God transmitted His words by faithful believers. Careful research proves we have God's miraculously preserved words in English in the Authorized King James Version.

Do you want a hundred Bibles made by men, or the Bible that God Himself kept His word to preserve? We expect perversions from man's work, but with God's preserved words in the King James Bible, we can always say with confidence, "Thus saith the Lord!"

 

[New Legacy]

“When you translate the original”? Yes, God's inspired word has been accurately reproduced (e.g. the KJB), but the 'original languages' pretext holds absolutely no import over God's inspired vernacular Bibles.

Since translated bibles cannot fully convey the Greek as they are translations, then Greek and Hebrew remain important. They convey the general meaning, but for doctrine and very specific issues, the originals are important.

The topic of Bible inspiration and infallibility can only be discussed with reference to actual words and verses.

No, in can be discussed in general. You are making an false claim.

A fog of emotional steam, that carries no substance, precedes comments such as, 'I don't believe the KJV corrects 'the original Greek' or 'I don't believe the KJV corrects the 'Majority Text' or the 'Textus Receptus.'

Not sure what any of this means.

The desire to appear intelligent or superior by referring to 'the Greek' and downplaying the common man's Bible, exposes a naivety concerning textual history

That is ironic. One cannot argue about the importance of the Greek or Hebrew unless one understands the languages. Believe that a translation is on par if naivety concerning textual criticism. It is saying I don't need to know something about something to say something about something. If what you want to say is informative, then you need to be informed.

and those documents which today's pseudo-intellectuals call 'the critical text,' 'the original Greek,' the 'Majority Text,' or the 'Textus Receptus.'

The Textus Receptus is not considered the original text. You may want to brush up on your understand of the bible and its history.

Aas I said, there existed a true original Greek (i.e. Majority Text, Textus Receptus).

And you have no evidence of this, you just claim it. BTW - this is a strange thing for you to say since you just said that pseudo-intellectuals call the Textus Receptus the original Greek.

It is not in print and never will be, because it is unnecessary.

WRONG. The TR is widely available for reading and study.

No one on the planet speaks first century Koine Greek, so God is finished with it.

People are able to translate it. To suggest God is done with it is your opinion based on how you think the word must conform and exist according to your beliefs.

He needs no 'Dead Bible Society' to translate it into "everyday English," using the same corrupt secularized lexicons used by the TNIV, NIV, NASB and HCSB. God has not called readers to check his Holy Bible for errors. He has called his Holy Bible to check us for errors.

God doesn't need a Greek version, but God does not need to translate it into every English - because there is the KJV and that is the only version God wants despite the fact it isn't in modern English. Do you not see how illogical you are being? The KJV is one of many translations of the bible - why is IT the only right one for English speakers?
How are the others corrupt? Other translations aren't corrections - they are other translations.

Who “cannot”? You? Or? Again, there is misunderstanding regarding the scriptural definition of “translation.”

If you understood the Greek or Hebrew, or translation in general, you would know there is no such thing as a perfect translation.
What is this scriptural definition of translation?

[qupte\ To illustrate one’s level of ignorance (not by slur, but by scriptural and scholarly definition), one need ask only one question:

Which “original Greek"? Is it Aleph1, Aleph2, Aleph3, B1, B2, B3, C, L, W, Textus Receptus, Westcott and Hort, Scrivener’s, Alfred, Griesbach, Elzevir, Erasmus, Tischendorf, Lachman, Souter, von Soden, Hodge-Farstad, Nestle’s-Aland (If so whichedition between 1 and 26? which printing of the 26th?), USB-Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren (Which edition between 1 and 47?), or the Greek-English Diglot for the Use of Translators?[/quote]

You are arguing my side right now.

Dear reader, if you are convinced most Christians use a recently published version of the bible, such as the NIV (debuted in 1973), NASB, Living Bible, etc. - what you really mean is - most that you have come in contact with, at your fellowship, in the nineteen nineties, in the U.S.A., use it. However, throughout the 2000-year history of the New Testament, people using a textlike those of the new versions, were in a mathematically infinitesimal minority. So, if you want to be lined up with most Christians ‘when the saints go marching in’, don’t take a quick spin of the head (like the girl in The Exorcist) to see what’s happening around you. Take a long look back through history and around the world. It is safer.

No, most English speaking Christians do not use a KJV. Perhaps you believe that because you only associate with KJV-onlyists. The Methodists do not use the KJV, The Orthodox don't. Catholics don't. UCC don't. Lutherans don't. Anglicans don't. I have already gone over this.

[qupte]The survival of ‘the’ original Greek New Testament is a dream which dissolves with the discovery that not all manuscripts and critical editions are alike. Those applying this term to a Greektext on the bookstore shelf or internet site are unacquainted with the volatile state of the text.[/quote]

You are agreeing with me again.

There are over 5366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. A corrupt few give a view of the text much like a shifting kaleidoscope. They contain several hundred thousand variant readings. In an attempt to marry these ‘moody’ manuscripts, the ‘Wheel of Fortune’ is whirled and readings are selected for inclusion in what scholars call a ‘critical edition of the Greektext.’ There are more than two dozen of these texts, each a ‘prize’ stuffed with between 5000 and 8000 variations. As one scholar puts it, “...equally competent critics often arrive at contrary conclusions as to the same variation.”

And you know the TR is the manuscript- why exactly? Because you have been told the KJV is right and therefore the manuscripts it uses is right?
Did you know the TR was created to prove the superiority of the Latin?

The overwhelming majority (over 99%) of these manuscripts, lectionaries and writers agree generally with each other as to the readings of the New Testament. Manuscripts from the second century (P66) down through the Middle Ages (A.D. 1500) attest to the readings of this 'Majority Text', as Kurt Aland terms it. Dean Burgeon, who found this 'Majority Text' in most of the early writers collated, calls it "The Traditional Text.' It is also called the Syrian Text, the Byzantine Text and the K (Kappa) or Common Text.

The agree in meaning, but no in wording. You are also being illogical and self-contradicting again. You say all these manuscripts are wrong and corrupt, then you say they all agree.

I notice you are just spamming with your recycled material from other posts.

I “argue” for no-thing; I simply take God’s word on it. Conversely, when one argues from the flesh, one cannot abide perfection.

God's word does not say it can be translated word of word. It can't, in fact,.

The ‘if you take 30 scholars” route is the predictable path of following the flesh rather than the Spirit.

Rhetoric - instead of addressing what I say you just say I am following the flesh. INVALID ARGUMENT.

Which “Vulgate”? Again, a sweeping generalization born of a lack of due diligence.

The Vulgate when used as a proper noun refers to the Latin Vulgate.

There’s your problem - looking at man. The pretext is wrong i.e. “translation is the work of man,” so the result will also be in error.

So some translations are inspired and preserved by the Holy Spirit and others are not? Where does the bible teach that? What is your evidence that the KJV is the only inspired translation in English?

In man’s world of textual criticism, that is a true statement. In God’s kingdom, that is blasphemy.

This is another 'I can't dispute the facts so I'll just religious insult you' rhetoric.
No - languages cannot be translated word of word. That is a FACT. Dispute it without simply claiming blasphemy.

I don’t have an “interpretation;” I have the Real Thing, the word of God.

Your bible is not a translation - which you call interpretation?

Jesus IS the Word. The Holy Bible IS absolute truth. Any “claims” made and it becomes once-removed.

Your bible is not a word for word translation.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3 KJB

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. John 3:7 KJB

That is where 20th Century Evangelical Americans got the term. Quote something in which a person calls himself a 'born again believer/Christian' prior to 1950?

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Mat 19:26 KJB

And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible. Mar 10:27 KJB

And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. Luk 18:27 KJB

I'll be happy to translate any Greek verse into English if you want. I must warn you, that the word order will be off.
Greek uses declensions, so words can be arranged in any way you want within the sentence. English requires that words be in certain parts of the sentence to convey meaning. Also 'to' 'of' 'a' and so many other words don't exist in Greek.

Again, it all depends on who your translator is - God or men.

What is your standard for determining which translators God inspired and which He did not?

No, I never said such; this is the crux of your misunderstanding. All scripture is given by inspiration of God; there’s no mention of any “inspired translators” there!

YOU JUST ARGUED THAT GOD IS YOUR TRANSLATOR.

Truth has never been about the translators. The living word of God (not man's "opinion" or dead scholarship) tells us that it is God who has preserved his inspired, pure, word for ever. God has always provided and maintained it outside of the foul realm of man's devices (e.g. lex-icons, corrupted manuscripts, unsaved "scholars," et al). And God did it again in Pentecost, when his pure, inspired, preserved for ever word went out in many languages, as it remains today in our vernacular Bibles. The sign above his head was written in three languages.



Again, it depends who your translator is...



No. Rather, there can be only one Translator...

You are making no sense. SEE ABOVE.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalms 12:6, 7 KJB

...there are actually about a dozen vernacular German Bibles, all inspired.

But the KJV is the only inspired version in English? What is your standard for determining what is inspired?

You are conflating apples with oranges; such confusion vanishes when we accept that there can be only one Translator...



No. Rather, there is only one Translator - and it isn’t your textual critics.

Again, God apparently inspires the translator, but you argue that he did not.



[quote\The KJV translators used 'thee,' 'ye,' 'thy,' 'thine,' and 'eth' and 'est' endings (on verbs) because these are the only way to show important grammatical and theological distinctions, clearly seen in the Greek and Hebrew text, and seen in other foreign vernacular Bibles. KJV English is Biblical English, not archaic English. It is much easier to learn than truly archaic koine Greek.[/quote]

You have shown a profound misunderstand of language. Those words do not convey any of the Greek sense outside of the formal and informal you.

Removal of these 'est' and 'eth' endings takes the English Bible one step further away from the Greek and Hebrew Bible.

How so? You just admitted knowing nothing about these languages and now you are making these claims?

The marked difference in style between the text of the King James Bible and its preface verifies that it was not written in the style of the period but with precise words characteristic of the lawful document that the Bible is. It matches Greek, Hebrew and pure foreign Bibles which likewise have inflected endings ('est' for second person and 'eth' for third person). It uses many other means to accurately convey meaning without ambiguity.

It was written in the style of the time.

New versions boast of their substitution of the word "you" for the so-called archaic "ye," "thou," and "thee," but do not notice that the KJV uses the word "you" 2,000 times for the plural objective case (e.g. "I tell you the truth"). It distinguishes "ye" (plural nominative), '"thou" (singular nominative) and "thee" (singular objective) when needed. By using those particular renderings, the KJV reader knows exactly to whom the word is referring. Other languages also have these fine distinctions (Greek, Spanish, Frrench, etc.).

If Jesus walked into a room with a married couple and said, "Ye are of your father the devil," the husband could not say, "He is talking to you, dear," because "ye" is plural. In certain places in the Bible, such as Matthew 16 and other places, the singular and the plural become very important. In a recent United Bible Society newsletter for translators, a contributor recommended the KJV because of its preciseness in this regard. In Awe of Thy Word elaborates in great detail.

You cut and pasted this, like much of the rest of your post. Is your tactic to spam me to death?

Erasmus was not Catholic in theology, and he did not consult the Latin Vulgate.

Erasmus was Catholic and he translated some of the TR from the Vulgate.

[qute]You’ve implied that Erasmus was a Catholic in theology and therefore his printing of the Greek NT was likewise imbued with Catholicism. That implication is an utter fabrication. What follows is a mere sampling of the documented truth of the matter -- that Erasmus left the convent at age 20 and did not print a Greek NT until decades later.

"I must and I will be free," Erasmus wrote (Froude, The Life and the Letters of Erasmus: Lectures Delivered at Oxford 1893-4, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1899, pp. 57, 21).

For the remainder of his life he did not wear "the habit of the Augustinians," nor live in a "monastery." "He may have been twenty when he left the convent." "In all of his bulky correspondence he never once mentioned having said the mass." (Froude, p. 21; Roland H. Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969, pp. 103, 244, et al.). "[T]here is no record that he ever exercised the priestly functions, and monasticism was one of the chief objects of his attack in his lifelong assault upon the evils of the Church" (The New Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. IV, p. 164).[/quote]

Leaving a monastery has nothing to do with leaving Catholicism.
The fact he was not a priest or monk does not show he left Catholicism.

"He was free for the first time in his life..." (Froude, The Life and Letters, pp. 21-22). At this time he was in his middle to late twenties. The New Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia states, "From this time on Erasmus led the life of an independent scholar, independent of country, of academic ties, of religious allegiance, of everything that could interfere with the free development of his intellect and the freedom of his literary expression...holding himself aloof from all entangling obligations... (vol. IV, p. 164).

Erasmus spoke of both Catholic and other theologians, "[W]hose brains are the rottenest, intellects the dullest, doctrines the thorniest, manners the brutalest, life the foulest, speech the spitefulest, hearts the blackest that I have ever encountered in the world...theologians. They are a proud, susceptible race...They live in the third heaven, adoring their own persons and disdaining the poor crawlers upon earth. They are surrounded by a bodyguard of definitions..." (Froude, The Life and Letters, pp. 70, 130). (These 'definitions' have been embalmed in Greek lexicons and haunt the pages of today's new versions. They may even materialize in KJV churches, with the magic incantation, 'That word a-c-t-u-a-l-l-y means...')

At the age of 40, Erasmus became the world's leading authority on the Greek language and the Greek New Testament. As such, he was hired to teach Greek at Cambridge University. He had already declined invitations to many professorships in Europe (Durant, Will, The Story of Civilization: The Reformation, vol. 6, New York: MJF Books, 1957, p. 275 et al). Eight years before the printing of the Greek New Testament, its composition was central in his thinking.

Erasmus was surrounded with Bible manuscripts from his childhood in the 1460s, until the publication of his Greek Text in 1516. This is over 40 years! He worked for a dozen years on the text itself.

Froude agrees, writing, "Through all these struggling years he had been patiently labouring at his New Testament..." (Froude, The Life and Letters, p. 119).

KJV critics love to pretend that Erasmus hurriedly put his Greek New Testament together. False assertions, repeated over and over ad nauseum, state that Erasmus had only a few Greek manuscripts. The Cambridge History of the Bible affirms, regarding Erasmus' Greek NT: "It corresponds to the manuscript tradition which in fact prevailed in the Greek church; and not until the end of the nineteenth century were editions proposed that differed [Westcott & Hort] other than on points of detail" (vol. 2, p. 499).

Kenneth W. Clark, the scholar who has examined more Greek manuscripts than most, admits, "We should not attribute to Erasmus the creation of a 'received text,' but only the transmission from a manuscript text, already commonly received, to a printed form, in which this text would continue to prevail for three centuries" (The Gentile Buias and Other Essays, The Erasmian Notes on Codex 2, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980, p. 168.)

Today there are over 5200 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. KJV critics ignore the fact that over 99% agree with Erasmus' Greek New Testament and the KJV. Less than one percent (.008) agree with the odd omissions and changes in the TNIV, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NRSV, NLB, CEV, NCV, NAB, and NJB. The agreement of this tiny minority is far from unanimous on many changes.

Were Erasmus alive today, he would find that, in the main, he had managed to match almost all of the over 5200 Greek manuscripts, and wisely ignore the other 44 corrupt ones. (If these critics had taken a course in Statistics in graduate school, they would know that guesses like this are statistically impossible, given the fact that the Greek New Testament has about 140,521 words.) Without the preservation of the text by God, try guessing all of them for yourself.

Here are some of the deceivers who have probably shaped your falsehoods concerning Erasmus:

William Combs
James White
Doug Kutilek
Robert Morey
Dan Corner

Wolves such as these are paid to give unwary readers the false impression that:

1) The text that Erasmus used is not representative of the majority of Greek New Testament texts (over 5200) extant today, which it is.

2) The Greek text of Erasmus began in the 1400s, which it did not.

3) Erasmus was a Catholic in theology, which he was not.

These deceivers also try to give the readers the false impression that these men (Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza) 'created' this text, rather than merely PRINTING the Greek text that was received everywhere. Erasmus' Greek New Testament text was a mirror of the handwritten Greek texts which were used before the advent of the printing press. Erasmus was merely the first to PRINT IT, PUBLISH IT AND CIRCULATE IT, in the new printed format.

Critics often assert that 'Erasmus did not have the manuscripts we have today.' In fact, he had access to every reading currently extant, and rejected those matching the Catholic Vulgate (and the TNIV, NIV, ESV, HCSB, and NASB today).



It wouldn’t matter to the born again remnant if they did exist, because we still have God’s promise of inspiration and preservation.

God obviously doesn’t value any “originals,” in detailing at least three translations within scripture itself! So neither should we.

Basically, you’re asking the wrong question. It’s not about any ”translation” per se, as the King James Bible describes several translations of scripture within itself. It’s about whether we believe God’s promise (Psalm 12:7) that he has preserved his pure inspired word for ever, and has made available that pure inspired word to every man in his own language for ever (Acts chap. 2).It has gotten so weird in the last 150 years that in order to say that you believe in the Bible, you have to say, "I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrancy of the -original autographs."

But what in the world is an "original autograph?" Well, if you take notes in church, that is your original autograph. That's your first copy, the one you write with your own hands.
So we ask: "Did God ever write anything down?" Yes, of course. On Mount Sinai, God gave Moses tables of stone "written by the finger of God." Now that is a real "original autograph!" What happened to those tables?

When Moses went down and saw the people sinning, he was so angry that he threw the tables down and broke them. He became the first person to break all Ten Commandments at once!

God made him cut out stones for a second set and God gave him His Words a second time. Now, was that second set of tablets inspired? Was it the words of God? Yes! But it wasn't the original autograph. It was a copy.

When Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, he included the Ten Commandments. Was that the original copy? No, it was a third copy. God knew that Moses was going to break the first set, the first thing God ever wrote that man had seen in all of creation.
God does not care about original autographs.

Later Jeremiah's scroll of prophecy was cut up by King Jehoiakim and burned in his fireplace. The next one Jeremiah dictated ended up in the Euphrates river! (See Jeremiah 36 and 51.) The earliest one he kept was the third copy. Did God care about these "original autographs?"

So, what is God saying in Psalms 12:6-7? Did He really preserve His words "from this generation for ever"? Is Jesus right that "my words shall not pass away" (Matt 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33)?

If God's inspired words were only in the "original autographs," then we do not have the real words of God, so He didn't keep His promise.

But God keeps His promises. So where can we look for the real words of God? All we have are copies and translations of copies. How can we know which copies are God's preserved words for us?

Gleason L. Archer was an important author to me when I was in Bible College. He gave good reasons for my faith. But, look at what Archer said about the Bible: "But what about the text of the Bible as we now possess it?... It would take nothing short of a miracle to insure the inerrancy of a copy of an original manuscript."

Well, God is a God of miracles! The second copy was like the first; the third copy was like the second, and the 826th copy was like the 825th. Because, God is a God who keeps His words. But He doesn't care about the original copy.

But God does care about two things: accurate copies and accurate translations. And we can look through history at thousands of copies and translations to see how consistently God transmitted His words by faithful believers. Careful research proves we have God's miraculously preserved words in English in the Authorized King James Version.

Do you want a hundred Bibles made by men, or the Bible that God Himself kept His word to preserve? We expect perversions from man's work, but with God's preserved words in the King James Bible, we can always say with confidence, "Thus saith the Lord!"

More cut and paste spamming. Erasmus was a Catholic. When did he renounce his faith or announce he was a member of another Christian group?

 

[ewq1938]

[h=2]Which version of the bible is best to read?[/h]

The first one...

 

[lawrenceb]

Since translated bibles cannot fully convey the Greek as they are translations, then Greek and Hebrew remain important.

Neither God, nor any discerning born again follower of Jesus Christ, gives a twit about “Greek” anything.

One cannot argue about the importance of the Greek or Hebrew unless one understands the languages.

No foolin’! That’s why God has never commanded us to learn ”Greek” anything or to “understand the languages.” Such are merely aspirations of wanna-bee scholars.

The Textus Receptus is not considered the original text.

“...not considered” by who? Ahh, by mere men again. No thanks. God does not care about some so-called "original text," so neither do I.

this is a strange thing for you to say since you just said that pseudo-intellectuals call the Textus Receptus the original Greek.

You don’t even know what “the original” is, even as you toss the word around.

The TR is widely available for reading and study.

Really? Then tell us who its ‘editor’ is.

People are able to translate [first century Koine Greek]. To suggest God is done with it is your opinion based on...

That people wrest the scriptures to their own destruction is God’s “opinion.” So why struggle in chains of your own making?

Do you not see how illogical you are being? The KJV is one of many translations of the bible - why is IT the only right one for English speakers? ...Other translations aren't corrections - they are other translations.

“Other translations” are derived from corrupted sources, ‘edited’ by unsaved men.

How are the others corrupt?

Finally, a fair question. What specifically are you asking about?

If you understood the Greek or Hebrew,

I do, fairly well, but that is to my shame and not to my credit. That which is esteemed among men is abomination unto God.

...there is no such thing as a perfect translation.

and

What is this scriptural definition of translation?

If, as you state, there is no perfect translation, then who cares what scripture’s definition of it is??? Do you see where you’ve painted yourself into a corner? You can’t have it both ways.

So, thus far, we have two questions worthy of consideration:

1) “How are the others corrupt?” and
2) “What is this scriptural definition of translation?”

No, most English speaking Christians do not use a KJV.

Rather, every bible marketer knows that sales of the Holy Bible (KJB) have exceeded 2 billion copies. You do the math.

Perhaps you believe that because you only associate with KJV-onlyists.

Rather, I’m “associating with” you right now. And the derogatory “KJV-onlyists” label is your device - not mine.

And you know the TR is the manuscript- why exactly? Because you have been told the KJV is right and therefore the manuscripts it uses is right?
Did you know the TR was created to prove the superiority of the Latin?

Again, who is the ‘editor’ of the particular “TR” you are spouting here? Do you even know?

I notice you are just spamming with your recycled material from other posts.

Truth is still truth. It is a sad commentary that some require it to be repeated over and over and over...

The Vulgate when used as a proper noun refers to the Latin Vulgate.

Such is but ONE reference to the loosely termed “Vulgate.” There are others...

No - languages cannot be translated word of word. That is a FACT. Dispute it without simply claiming blasphemy.

Again, it all depends on who you are trusting to do the “translating”... The problem is that you don’t know what or who the translator is.

Your bible is not a word for word translation.

Exactly. The truth has never been about “word for word” -- it’s about Spirit for Spirit.

That is where 20th Century Evangelical Americans got the term. Quote something in which a person calls himself a 'born again believer/Christian' prior to 1950?

Quote something where ANY follower of Jesus Christ (from his disciples to the English KJB) called himself “Christian.”

I'll be happy to translate any Greek verse into English if you want. I must warn you, that the word order will be off.

If course you “must warn [me] that the word order will be off.”

Ludicrous, isn’t it?

What is your standard for determining which translators God inspired and which He did not?

The word of God does NOT say that God inspired translators! This is the area in which you and the majority have been deceived. However, it DOES say that all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Your focus has been subtly shifted from the absolute (the word of God i.e. God’s Spirit) to the folly of men and their textual criticisms.

YOU JUST ARGUED THAT GOD IS YOUR TRANSLATOR.

Amen! You got it! (He’s also my Interpreter.)

But the KJV is the only inspired version in English? What is your standard for determining what is inspired?

My “standard”? God says, "so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9). Who can study God? How can you put Him under a microscope? How do you study One who is greater than you and One who cannot be fathomed by the limited capacity of a man's finite brain? So any conclusions one comes to would have to be faulty. The Word of God testifies against it.

1 Corinthians 2:11, "...the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."

Psalms 145:3, "Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable."

Romans 11:33, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out."

Ephesians 3:8, "...the unsearchable riches of Christ.”

Job 11:7-9, "Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea."

Therefore, the natural man looks to create “a god” in his own image and likeness using philosophy, hermeneutics, and theology to give the image of truth.

Again, God apparently inspires the translator, but you argue that he did not

Ok, maybe we’re getting somewhere now. God inspires his word. What is the root, the etymology, of “inspire”? It’s Spirit ! Man is not in that picture. So, you either believe God’s promise (Psalm 12:6, 7), or you do not believe it.

Those words do not convey any of the Greek sense

Still hung up on that “Greek” nonsense?

Leaving a monastery has nothing to do with leaving Catholicism.
The fact [Erasmus] was not a priest or monk does not show he left Catholicism.

... More cut and paste spamming. Erasmus was a Catholic. When did he renounce his faith or announce he was a member of another Christian group?

You have failed to show he ever joined Catholicism.

To sum, we have two questions worthy of consideration:

1) “How are the others corrupt?” and
2) “What is this scriptural definition of translation?”

I opt for #2 first. What say ye?

 

[New Legacy]

Neither God, nor any discerning born again follower of Jesus Christ, gives a twit about “Greek” anything.

The scriptures were written in Greek (and Hebrew), and both do not perfectly translate into other languages- so yes, it is important.

No foolin’! That’s why God has never commanded us to learn ”Greek” anything or to “understand the languages.” Such are merely aspirations of wanna-bee scholars.

How can one get at the message if they do not understand the nuances of the language - when people get hung up on words of phrasing that don't exist in the Greek?

“...not considered” by who? Ahh, by mere men again. No thanks. God does not care about some so-called "original text," so neither do I.

Who considers it an original text? You? Based on what? How can it be an original text if it was partially formed by the Latin?
Where does the bible say that all translations perfectly translate the original words?

You don’t even know what “the original” is, even as you toss the word around.

I don't think there was a first edition bible. You said the TR was the original, and then it wasn't, and then it didn't matter, and then the KJV was right because it was based on the TR.

Really? Then tell us who its ‘editor’ is.

Erasmus.

That people wrest the scriptures to their own destruction is God’s “opinion.” So why struggle in chains of your own making?

What is your scriptural basis for saying this is God's view?

“Other translations” are derived from corrupted sources, ‘edited’ by unsaved men.

What is your evidence of this? Erasmus was saved, despite the fact he was Catholic?

Finally, a fair question. What specifically are you asking about?

All other manuscripts which you have accused of being corrupt - what is your evidence for this?

I do, fairly well, but that is to my shame and not to my credit. That which is esteemed among men is abomination unto God.

You don't seem to grasp the very basic concept that Greek does not translate word for word.

If, as you state, there is no perfect translation, then who cares what scripture’s definition of it is??? Do you see where you’ve painted yourself into a corner? You can’t have it both ways.

You made up the concept - so define it. What is the scriptural definition?

So, thus far, we have two questions worthy of consideration:

1) “How are the others corrupt?” and
2) “What is this scriptural definition of translation?”

Which you don't answer.

Rather, every bible marketer knows that sales of the Holy Bible (KJB) have exceeded 2 billion copies. You do the math.

And most Christians are Catholic- so Catholics must be right? Numbers mean nothing.
You can't avoid the fact that most English speaking Christians do not rely on the KJV.

Rather, I’m “associating with” you right now. And the derogatory “KJV-onlyists” label is your device - not mine.

You are the one calling all other translations wrong and arguing with God.

Again, who is the ‘editor’ of the particular “TR” you are spouting here? Do you even know?

Erasmus.

Truth is still truth. It is a sad commentary that some require it to be repeated over and over and over...

This is argument of attrition, not facts or logic.

Such is but ONE reference to the loosely termed “Vulgate.” There are others...

When used as a proper noun, it refers to the Latin Vulgate.

Again, it all depends on who you are trusting to do the “translating”... The problem is that you don’t know what or who the translator is.

That does not negate the fact that Greek does not translate word for word.

Exactly. The truth has never been about “word for word” -- it’s about Spirit for Spirit.

Glad you agree with me - translation captures the meaning of spirit of the text. That is why you can have many translations. Different words, same translation.

Quote something where ANY follower of Jesus Christ (from his disciples to the English KJB) called himself “Christian.”

Acts tells us that at Antioch they were first called Christians. All of history shows that 'born again believer/Christian' came about in the 50s and 60s from American Evanglicalism. That actually suggests denominationalism - they were Christians (as the bible says) they are 'born again christians' a term never used in the bible. Born again is - born again christian is not.

If course you “must warn [me] that the word order will be off.”

If you translate the Greek word of word, the words will be out of order. Yes or no?

The word of God does NOT say that God inspired translators! This is the area in which you and the majority have been deceived. However, it DOES say that all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

That was your argument, not mine. You argued that only one translation was correct and inspired and the rest were arguing with God. If all scripture is given by inspiration, then all translations are correct according to you. Unless you can give reason for WHY a particular translation isn't.

Your focus has been subtly shifted from the absolute (the word of God i.e. God’s Spirit) to the folly of men and their textual criticisms.

You have been the one to say one translation in English is right and the others are wrong. Sounds like textual criticism to me.

Amen! You got it! (He’s also my Interpreter.)

So God inspired some translators and no others?

My “standard”? God says, "so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:9). Who can study God? How can you put Him under a microscope? How do you study One who is greater than you and One who cannot be fathomed by the limited capacity of a man's finite brain? So any conclusions one comes to would have to be faulty. The Word of God testifies against it.

Your quote does not support your view. You are the one saying one translation is right and others and wrong. You are the one questioning scripture, not me.

Therefore, the natural man looks to create “a god” in his own image and likeness using philosophy, hermeneutics, and theology to give the image of truth.

Or to say one translation is true and suppose others are not. Hmmm.

Ok, maybe we’re getting somewhere now. God inspires his word. What is the root, the etymology, of “inspire”? It’s Spirit ! Man is not in that picture. So, you either believe God’s promise (Psalm 12:6, 7), or you do not believe it.

I have said that the meaning of scripture is captured in various translations. You argue only ONE translation holds inspiration, despite having no argument for it.

Still hung up on that “Greek” nonsense?

You mean the language the bible was written in and doesn't 'perfectly translate' into English. It's not nonsense.

You have failed to show he ever joined Catholicism.

He was baptized and raised as a Catholic. He joined a Catholic monastery. Meaning it made a decision as an adult. Where is your evidence that he ever left Catholicism?

To sum, we have two questions worthy of consideration:

1) “How are the others corrupt?” and
2) “What is this scriptural definition of translation?”

I opt for #2 first. What say ye?

Answer both of them. You made both claims, you should defend them.

 

[lawrenceb]

In case you missed it in my previous post:

There are two of your questions worthy of consideration:

1) “How are the others corrupt?” and
2) “What is this scriptural definition of translation?”

I opt for #2 first. What say ye?