Bible Versions Issue Settled!

[KrispyKritter]

This link will show you proof of the confusion and frustration caused by Modern Versions:

http://www.ucomics.com/kudzu/2003/11/18/

(It's actually pretty funny, y'all... lighten up!)

[glorymj]

:pound

[Ponderin]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
This link will show you proof of the confusion and frustration caused by Modern Versions:

http://www.ucomics.com/kudzu/2003/11/18/

(It's actually pretty funny, y'all... lighten up!)


LOL

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
This link will show you proof of the confusion and frustration caused by Modern Versions:

http://www.ucomics.com/kudzu/2003/11/18/

(It's actually pretty funny, y'all... lighten up!)

Well, it merely means that one needs to be cognizant of the translation board!

Their biases and prejudices may very well interfere with their translating...

Sorry to be a stickler.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by pilgrimian
Well, it merely means that one needs to be cognizant of the translation board!

Their biases and prejudices may very well interfere with their translating...

Sorry to be a stickler.

Godspeed,
Matthew

blah blah blah... I was just trying to bring a little humor to the debate.

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
blah blah blah... I was just trying to bring a little humor to the debate.

LOL...I know, I know.

Silly comic.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[Leuretha]

:laugh :laugh :laugh

[zion]

http://www.ucomics.com/kudzu/2003/11/18/

:laugh



im all for modern translations (apart from those gender free ones)

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by zion
im all for modern translations (apart from those gender free ones)

I guess you missed the other threads I started about modern translations... I'm not KJV-O ... But I am completely against modern translations. Not because they are modern, but because of the horrendous greek text that they are based on.

[Walter]

:B: Bible issue settled? Great.
Then that means everyone realises that the KJV is the only reliable version around.

[KrispyKritter]

Walt... Cant tell if that was sarcasm or your honest opinion?? :confused

[Walter]

:tape

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
Walt... Cant tell if that was sarcasm or your honest opinion?? :confused

Well, the KJV is the only God-breathed version. Right? If the NKJV uses the Majority Text in any manner then it is corrupt. So what versions are not corrupt, Krispy?

[Walter]

:thumb Why I`m a KJV onlyist
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html

[zion]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
I guess you missed the other threads I started about modern translations... I'm not KJV-O ... But I am completely against modern translations. Not because they are modern, but because of the horrendous greek text that they are based

I still see Jesus on every page of my Bible, so to me thats all that counts.

Because I have no idea about the greek manuscripts. Ive heard good arguments for and against the KJV manuscripts.

[glorymj]

Originally posted by Walter
:thumb Why I`m a KJV onlyist
http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html :doh

[Walter]

Originally posted by glorymj
:doh Hi Glory, if I said something you did`nt agree with or like I wish you would tell me.
Walt

[glorymj]

I was just hoping this thread could stay light hearted as it was intended. :D:

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by glorymj
I was just hoping this thread could stay light hearted as it was intended. :D:

Good point.

Though, Walt...you must realize all that page shows is what is allegedly missing from the Alexandrian Text. Ever think that God never had those words written down? Ever consider that what you think is Scripture may very well have never been? This is best seen by the numerous times "Jesus" in the Alexandrian Text is "The Lord Jesus Christ" in the Textus Receptus. Why is this? Because a pious monk along the way somewhere added words. Voila. Same for many other verses.

Read multiple versions. Simple as that.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[LaMontre]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
This link will show you proof of the confusion and frustration caused by Modern Versions:

http://www.ucomics.com/kudzu/2003/11/18/

(It's actually pretty funny, y'all... lighten up!)

I'm convinced..........:P:

[Elizabeth_S]

I thought it was funny krispy. :pound

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by pilgrimian
Good point.

Though, Walt...you must realize all that page shows is what is allegedly missing from the Alexandrian Text. Ever think that God never had those words written down? Ever consider that what you think is Scripture may very well have never been? This is best seen by the numerous times "Jesus" in the Alexandrian Text is "The Lord Jesus Christ" in the Textus Receptus. Why is this? Because a pious monk along the way somewhere added words. Voila. Same for many other verses.

Read multiple versions. Simple as that.

Godspeed,
Matthew

Some pious monk along the way added words? You know this for a fact? Please state where you got this info from because it sounds an awful lot like speculation on your part, Matthew.

If you follow your reasoning, then it would make sense to say that we cant trust any version. In other words, we can not trust anything to be the Word of God. And without the Word of God, we are lost. Why? Because what you are saying, in essence, is that God was not faithful to His promise to preserve His Word unto all generations. And your thoughts on this cast an incredible amount of doubt on our faith. And if God can not keep this promise... what hope do we have in anything else that He has promised us. Maybe God needs to attend Promise Keepers and learn a little bit about keeping promises. Apparently He is not as all-powerful as He claims to be. Sure, He brought the Israelites up out of Egypt, parted the Red Sea, fed the 5,000, and raised His Son from the dead... but keeping His Word in tact was just too much for Him, I suppose.

I think you need to think your poistion thru a little more. And also, if you do not have proof of something (the monk comment for instance) then you should not pass it along. You could be passing along misinformation.

I know you're a believer and you take your faith seriously, Matthew... but I would be remiss if I didnt point out the consequences of your theory, should it be true.

[walkbyfaith]

Okay, burn me, I'm not afraid.:D:

I prefer comparing several versions when studying texts, along with the Greek and Hebrew, and trust that the Holy Spirit will teach the Truth.

When I see people fussin' over versions, it APPEARS (please note the word used here!) that we are idolizing the version over the God. :freaked

KRISPY: Loved the cartoon (some modern versions are kinda silly).

Barb G

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by walkbyfaith
When I see people fussin' over versions, it APPEARS (please note the word used here!) that we are idolizing the version over the God. :freaked

OK... I grow tired of having to clarify this... but since I dont remember you (Barb G) getting in this debate with me before... I clarify it for ya...

This is not a version issue... it is an underlying greek text issue. Do you use a version that is based on the Textus Receptus, with 5,000 ancient manuscript copies that confirm each other 99%, or the Alexandrian Text, with 2 "ancient" manuscripts that confirm each other only 80% of the time... and completely disagree with the 5,000 manuscripts of the Textus Receptus? (Some claim the Alexandrian Text is older... but that is questionable because to date the Catholic Church has never showed a single thread of evidence to proove that. "Experts" simply take their word for it)

KJV, Wycliff, Tyndale, Green Bible's are based on the 99%.

Modern Versions are based on 1%.

It boils down to mathematical odds.... and faith. Not "versions". If you think that it's "version worship", or "it was good enough for grandpa, it's good enough for me"... then you would be ignoring the real issue.

[MikeJ]

We speaketh in ye olde English to seemeth super spiritual.

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by MikeJ
We speaketh in ye olde English to seemeth super spiritual.

Go ahead and mock... but you're totally ignoring the issue, and that can be a foolish position to be in.

[MikeJ]

KrispyKritter,

I agree with your reasoning. I've just always wanted to post the "ye olde English" thing merely as a joke on a "KJV only" thread. The KJV is absolutely an excellent translation; far superior to most of the modern attempts.

Mike

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter


It boils down to mathematical odds....

Hmmmmm....

Mathematical odds first...and then faith? Okay, Krispy.

You don't seem to be concerned with how the Spirit teaches? I grew up on the Revised Standard...the Lord used it to save me.

I used the NIV throughout elementary and high school...the Lord used it to bring me to maturity.

I have used the NASB, the NKJV, the ASV, 1901 and the ESV as an adult. Not only am the better for it, but God has continued to bless me and teach me and bring me to a spiritual maturity.

I've gotten this far without the KJV as my sole source as God's Word. Thanks Krispy, but your mathematical odds don't amount much to how the Lord has used His Word with me in so many of the translations (regardless of their underlying texts).

The earlier comment I made about the expanded version (from "Jesus" the "the Lord Jesus Christ") was something I read in James White's book The King James Only Controversy. I've actually read KJV-Only material that attempts to say that modern translations attempt to take away Christ's deity by "taking away" parts of His title. This is silly when one reads Scripture in totality. Jesus is the Messiah. Just because one verse doesn't call him "Christ" or "Lord" takes none of that away.

Multiple translations is good. So I know about KJV-Only folks who are post-millennial and amillennial. I know of KJV-Only folks who think they're the New Israel. What about doctrine? I am more interested in one's theology.

Romans 9:5 (http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/romans95.htm)

Godspeed,
Matthew

[SavedbyYeshua]

Interestingly, the KJV is not the first English version. How about the English Calvin version first printed in 1544 I think through the early 1600s and used by the pilgrims? The KJV supposedly was the official government version intended to exert the English monarchy into control of religious life in England which is why the pilgrims sought freedom in the New World...

I do think it is very helpful to have an understanding of the significant differences, outright mistranslations, and slants that different English bible versions promote...

It would be a blessing to understand Hebrew fluently...

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by SavedbyYeshua
Interestingly, the KJV is not the first English version. How about the English Calvin version first printed in 1544 I think through the early 1600s and used by the pilgrims? The KJV supposedly was the official government version intended to exert the English monarchy into control of religious life in England which is why the pilgrims sought freedom in the New World...

I do think it is very helpful to have an understanding of the significant differences, outright mistranslations, and slants that different English bible versions promote...

It would be a blessing to understand Hebrew fluently...

You're correct, SBY! It would also be good to understand Koine Greek (which I am learning), and Aramaic!!!

The name of that translation is the Geneva Bible. In fact, it was recently reprinted with commentary by those of the Reformed persuasion (Replacement Theologians like R.C. Sproul).

I've got nothing against the KJV personally, but it is exceptionally strange to me that people want to say it is the height of translation, and that it uses the best manuscripts.

The older manuscripts have not be expanded by pious monks, or harmonized. I can show, if Krispy or anyone asks, which Scriptures have been used to harmonize some passages...and those where Christ's title has been expanded.

Though I disagree with White when it comes to his own doctrinal beliefs (he is Replacement), he has some very good things to say about the KJV in relation to modern translations. See here:

Alpha & Omega Ministries (http://www.aomin.org/kjvo.html)

Godspeed,
Matthew

[pilgrimian]

"A Parable Concerning the Majority Text"
by Matthew Chapman
(A Work of Satire)


"A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver. As an earing of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear."

--Proverbs 25:11-12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(This parable was, of course, in the original text of the gospel of Matthew, however, it was removed sometime during the mid-fourth century by Baal-worshipping heretics in Alexandria, attempting to undermine orthodoxy and corrupt the scriptures, in submission to a plot by the devil to destroy the true faith. You will see that this is indeed the true Word of the Lord, for it is written in Elizabethan English.)




And it came to pass that, lo, a group of KJV-fundamentalists came forth unto Jesus, and questioneth him thusly, saying, "Behold, by what means shall we determine the text of our scriptures? Shall our manuscripts be weighed, upon scales of honest weights and measures, according to the law of Moses, or shall they be counted, according to the tradition passed down to us by our fathers?"

And Jesus answereth them, and spake unto them this parable, saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, there was certain man who had an orchard of trees which bore fruit in their due season. And behold, only one kind of fruit was borne in this orchard, neither two kinds of fruit, nor three kinds of fruit, but, yea, only one kind of fruit.

And it came to pass that the owner of the orchard was called away to a distant city upon business, and so he left the orchard in the care of his servants. Now, that man's servants were wicked and sloathful, for they tendedeth not the orchard, nor the trees of the orchard, nor the fruit borne of the trees of the orchard. Therefore, when many seasons had come forth and passed hence, many of the trees withered away, and other trees not of the same kind grew up among the fruit trees. Thus, various kinds of fruit were to be found among the trees of the orchard.

And behold, after many years, the servants of the orchard owner died, and their duties were passed on to their sons. And the sons of the wicked servants said unto themselves, 'Come, let us see this orchard, with which our fathers had been entrusted, and let us behold the fruit trees, and determineth which kind of fruit was grown there at the beginning, so that we may reproduce the original fruit, and when the master returns, he will find not his orchard corrupted.'

Therefore, going unto the orchard, the sons of the wicked servants findeth only three trees which still beareth fruit. But each tree beareth a different kind of fruit, so that in the orchard is not found one kind of fruit, neither four kinds of fruit, but, yea, three kinds of fruit. And the sons of the servants looketh, and behold, they findeth that on the first tree, there are 100 pieces of that fruit in accordance with the kind of that fruit tree. And again, the sons of the servants looketh, and behold, they findeth that on the second tree 50 pieces of that fruit in accordance with the kind of that fruit tree. And yet a third time, the sons of the sevants looketh upon the fruit trees, and behold, the third tree beareth only 10 pieces of that fruit in accordance with the kind of that fruit tree. And so I now ask you, which tree bore the fruit which was originally grown in that orchard?"

And the KJV-fundamentalists answereth him, saying, "We knoweth not." And Jesus answereth them and said, "Neither shall I tell you from whence the original fruit cometh." And, behold, a little child, spake unto them, saying, "Look not unto the fruit! Rather, look unto the tree, for when one looketh upon the tree, he may then look upon the other trees of the orchard not bearing fruit, to determine which trees are the oldest and the ones having been planted originally." This was accomplished to fulfill what was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah, "The rest of the trees of his forest shall be few, that a child may write them" (Isaiah 10:19, KJV) and also, "a little child shall lead them." (Isaiah 11:6, KJV)

And lo, when Jesus was alone with his disciples, they spake unto Him saying, "Lord, explain to us the parable of the fruit trees." And Jesus answereth them, saying, "Oh you of little faith! How long shall I remain with you? The orchard is the Word of God, and its trees are the text-types of extant manuscripts. The fruit are the individual manuscripts. All of the fruit of a kind come from the same tree. In the same way, all of the manuscripts of a text-type come from the same source. Thus, you cannot count the manuscripts to determine the original. One must compare the text-types, to determine which manuscripts are most reliable, for though there may be many Byzantine manuscripts, yea, they are called Legion, for they are many, they all stem from the same source, and that source may not be the best one. Verily, the best source may be that which has yielded few manuscripts."

And Philip spake unto him, saying, "Thou hast shown us the Father!" And Jesus answereth him, saying, "Nay, for textual criticism is not a theological discipline, rather, it is an historical discipline." And Jesus spoke many other things to them concerning textual criticism, and I suppose were all of them written down, the world would not contain the Textus Receptus or King James Bible at all. Amen.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Disclaimer: Please note, this is only a work of satire! I do not Actually purport to write the inspired word of God. I have the utmost respect for the scriptures, and I do believe that we have today the infallible word of God, preserved for us in a vast number of manuscripts. I only attempt to present, in a creative manner, some issues for your consideration. If you take offense, I humbly offer my sincerest apologies, and would gladly take up a discussion of the issue with you, in the spirit of Christina love and fellowship. You may contact me via e-mail.

© 2002 Matt Chapman
This document may be freely copied and distributed non-commercially, provided it remains unaltered, including the complete text, disclaimer, and copyright notice. For permission for commercial publication (publication in any form for which the reader is charged), please contact the author.

http://www.solagratia.org/Chapman.html

[Elizabeth_S]

Originally posted by MikeJ
We speaketh in ye olde English to seemeth super spiritual.

:nod

And evryone knows that Paul, Peter, James and them spoke in old english, even if it had not been around until aobut 1500 years later.

Course, I have it on good authority that Paul/Peter and James most likely did not speak English at all. :lol

[col311]

Originally posted by Walter
:B: Bible issue settled? Great.
Then that means everyone realises that the KJV is the only reliable version around.


:rolleyes

[LaMontre]

Originally posted by Elizabeth_S
:nod

And evryone knows that Paul, Peter, James and them spoke in old english, even if it had not been around until aobut 1500 years later.

Course, I have it on good authority that Paul/Peter and James most likely did not speak English at all. :lol

You know there are some aspects of the old english that make the language more accurate in translating the highly precise greek and hebrew languages.

The following comes from this website.

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0448.htm


In King James English;

Thou is the second person singular subjective. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:.." Ge 2:17a

Thee is the second person objective "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman..." Ge 3:15a

Ye is the second person plural subjective. "...Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Ge 3:1

You is the second person plural objective. "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed..."Ge 1:29 (note: He is addressing both Adam and Eve.)

The following comes from this website.

http://www.revelationwebsite.co.uk/index1/kjv/whythee.htm

The AV translators desired an accurate, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek text. They wanted to stick closely to the Biblical usage of the singular and plural distinctions in the second person forms of pronouns and verbs, if they used the one-word "you" throughout, they would not be able to do this. If "You" is used for the singular as well as the plural: it becomes an ambiguous word. In Luke 22.31,32,

"The Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have YOU, that he may sift YOU as wheat,"

"you" here referring to Peter and the other disciples;

"But I have prayed for THEE, that THY faith fail not: and when THOU art converted, strengthen THY brethren."

"thee " and "thy" referring to Peter only. Satan's desire was directed to all the apostles, but the Lord prays for each individually. Such distinctions are completely lost when "you" is used throughout.

When thou, thee, thy, are replaced by you, your, the translation is liable to produce an erroneous impression on the reader, and have limited value in the exact study of Scripture.

The Greek and Hebrew language contain a different word for the second person singular and the second person plural pronouns. In modern English, the second person pronoun is expressed with one word, whether in the singular or the plural. That word is "you." Most other European languages have both a singular and a plural pronoun in the second person, as well as in the first and third persons. The first person singular pronoun in the nominative case, for example, is "I," while the plural is "we." The third person singular pronoun (also in the nominative case) is "he," while the plural is "they." Modern English, however, has only "you" for all its second person pronoun uses. High English uses "thou" for the second person singular, and "you" for the plural.
If it begins with "t" (thou, thy, thine, thee) it's SINGULAR,
but if it begins with "y" (ye, you, your) it's PLURAL.
In this way, the AV lets us know whether the Scripture means a singular "you" or a plural "you." "Thou" or "thee" mean one person's being addressed, and "ye" or "you" mean several. This feature often helps us to better interpret God's Word.

The preface of the NIV rightly points out that the ancient tongues (Hebrew & Greek) did not use a special form of the word "you" to address God. However, a cursory reading of the AV will soon clarify the fact that it is the modern translations which have attempted to keep "thee and thou" when addressing God and "you and you" when addressing mortals. That is NOT the case with the AV. The AV usage is simply a reflection of the singular 2nd person pronouns used in the Hebrew and Greek in which the Scriptures were originally written by the inspiration of God. However, if you read through the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures you will never find a single instance in which God is addressed using a 2nd person PLURAL pronoun. Not once!

Some examples of the ambiguity that arises from not properly translating singulars and plurals.

In Luke 22:31, the NIV rightly explains in a footnote that the term "you" as used in that verse is plural. But then it FAILS to mention that in verse 32, the word "you" is singular in Greek! Of course, those who use the AV have no difficulty discerning that even without footnotes!

Exodus 4:15.

"THOU shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth; and I will be with THY mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach YOU what YE shall do."

The THOU, THY refer to Moses himself, but YOU refers to the entire nation of Israel which would be instructed by the spokesman Aaron. It becomes quite difficult to tell who is being addressed without being able to distinguish properly between singular and plural pronouns.

Exodus 29:42,

"This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout YOUR generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD where I will meet YOU, to speak there unto THEE."

The you, referring to the children of Israel, is explained in the following verse, but THEE refers to Moses, who had the holy privilege of hearing the words of God directly (Leviticus 1:1).

2 Samuel 7:23,

"And what nation in the earth is like THY people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for YOU great things and terrible, for THY land, before THY people, which THOU redeemedst to THEE from Egypt."

Here David is in prayer to God, speaking TO God in the second person singular (THY, THOU). David also speaks ABOUT God in the third person--"God, himself, him," a change of style that hardly marks prayers today. The people of Israel are referred to in the second person--YOU, even in a prayer. Consider what confusion could result if this important distinction were done away with by using YOU, YOUR throughout? It could be incorrectly thought that David was praying in part to the nation -- or that the land belonged to the people and not to God. Either misconstruction invites error.

Matthew 26:64,

"Jesus saith unto him, THOU has said: nevertheless I say unto YOU, hereafter shall YE see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

THOU refers to the High Priest. YE and YOU refers to all who will see Him in the day of His glory (Revelation 1:7), it can be open to some interpretation, but AT LEAST include all those who were standing there IN ADDITION to the high priest.

John 3:7,

"Marvel not that I said unto THEE, YE must be born again." The message was spoken to the individual Nicodemus, but obviously the message has a wider application, referring to all men. So also in John 3 verse 11, we read: "I say unto THEE...that YE receive not our witness."

1 Corinthians 8:9-12,

"Take heed lest...this liberty of YOURS.... If any man see THEE which hast knowledge... through THY knowledge...but when YE sin."

The plural form likely refers to all church members, but the singular form to those individuals in responsibility. In verse 13, Paul even brings the principle home to himself!

2 Timothy 4:22.

"The Lord Jesus Christ be with THY spirit. Grace be with YOU." (Contrast 1 Timothy 6:21.)

The singular refers to Timothy, to whom alone the Epistle was written (2 Timothy 1:1). But the plural refers to others who were also included in Paul's final greetings, "Priscila and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus" (4:19).

Titus 3:15.

"All that are with me salute THEE. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with YOU all."

Here, the singular refers to Titus, but the YOU to the church in Crete (1:5), and to all who loved Paul in the faith.

Philemon 21-25.

"Having confidence in THY obedience I wrote unto THEE, knowing that THOU wilt also do more than I say .. I trust that through YOUR prayers I shall be given unto YOU ... There salute THEE ... the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with YOUR spirit."

The singular refers to Philemon, but this short letter was also addressed to "Apphia ... Archippus ... and to the church in thy house" (v. 2). Thus the plural form is used in verses 3 and 25 where grace is offered, and in verse 22 where fellowship with the whole church is expected, as well as with Philemon as an individual.

Get out a "modern" translation that has dropped the use of the 2nd person singular/plural distinction and compare the above passages along with Numbers 16:8-11; Deuteronomy 4:3; 1 Kings 9:5-6; Isaiah 33:2-4; Matthew 5:39; Matthew 6:4-7; Matthew 11:23-24; Matthew 18:9-10; Matthew 18:22-35; Matthew 20:21-22; Matthew 23:37-38; Mark 14:37-38; Luke 5:4; Luke 6:30-31; Luke 9:41; Luke 10:13-14; Luke 16:25-26; Luke 22:31-32; John 1:50-51; James 2:16; etc. Replacing "thou/thee/thy/thine" with the ambiguous "you" does not clarify, but muddies the Scriptures, and conveys half-truths.

.......-EST & -ETH

Adding "-s" and "-es" to words make them plural, but in modern English we have no such suffix to prevent confusion between the rendering of a noun in its plural form and the rendering of a verb in its active and onging form. The old English made this distinction by use of an "-eth" or "-est" ending.

Romans 14:7:

For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

None of us liveth to himself means that life is ongoing. Such a one is in the continual process of being alive. no man dieth to himself tells us that he is in the continual process of dying. If the translators used the more broadly understood "No man lives to himself, and no man dies to himself." the full meaning of the verse is lost, "No man dies to himself" means the act of dying.

You can see the websites for more examples of this and other helpful wording in the KJV.