Amplified Bible

[Christ Rocks On]

How does it measure up?

[Joshua's Gen]

Well personally - I like it. :):

[Candi]

I bought a really nice Amplified Bible about two years ago and I love it!! :D:

[Danimus]

all by itself or as a study tool used with a NASB or NIV?

[Xlcor]

I like the Amplified because I can hear it better.;):

[KrispyKritter]

From the birth of Christ to 400 A.D. False prophets wrote polluted gospels and other books of the Bible at the same time that the true books of the New Testament were being written. Paul makes mention of this in 2 Cor. 2:17, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God .... " Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit these tainted manuscripts were cast aside and were not included in the Textus Receptus.

331 A.D. Constantine ordered that an "ecumenical Bible" be written that would be accepable to every stripe of Christian that was under his jurisdiction. A man by the name of Eusebius was assigned to direct this undertaking. Eusebius was a follower of Origen who rejected the deity of Christ. He claimed that Christ was a created being. The Jehovah's Witnesses of today believe the same thing. This error is called the Arian heresy.

1481 A.D. The Vatican manuscript was discovered in the Vatican Library. This is a corrupted manuscript which repeatedly casts aside the deity of Christ. It reflects the Arianism of Origen and is thought by some to be one of the surviving manuscripts done be Euscbius at the command of Constantine. The date of its writing coincides with the "ecumenical Bible" of Constantine.

1844 A.D. The Sinaitic manuscript was discovered at Mt. Sinai in the monastery of Saint Catherine. It agrees closely with the Vatican manuscript and minimises the deity of Christ and is Arian in nature. It is safe to suggest that these two manuscripts were two of the fifty that were written for Constantine.

1881 A.D. The Westcott and Hort Greek Text was introduced. This text departed from the Textus Receptus and follows the Vatican and Sinaitic corruptions. Most scholars from every spectrum of Christianity have knowingly or otherwise promoted the Westcott and Hort text from that time to the present.

The Jehovah's Witness Bible entitled the "New World Translation of the Scriptures" was translated from the text of Westcott and Hort. Their friendship with Westcott and Hort is not surprising. They reject the deity of Christ and gain strength from this corrupt text.

Most, if not all, of the modern translations of the Bible follow the path of the two worst manuscripts which are in existence. They almost seem to loathe the Textus Receptus. This is evidenced by the fact that most Bible colleges, seminaries and schools use some Greek text other than the Textus Receptus. Nevertheless, the new versions are founded on faulty texts and are not acceptable for any purpose.

The omissions of Jesus as “Christ” and “Lord” in the Amplified Bible:

The word “Christ” is omitted in:
Acts 9:20
Acts 15:11
1 Cor. 5:4
1 Cor. 9:1
1 Thess. 2:19
Hebrews 3:1

The word “Lord” is omitted in:
1 Timothy 1:1
1 Timothy 5:21
2 Timothy 4:1
2 John 3

The following verses show “Christ” or “Lord” in italics. Their explanation for this omission is as follows: "Italics indicate certain familiar words or passages found in the King James Version, but generally omitted now because they are not adeouately supported by more recent scholarship." Would any care to hazard a guess as to who the more recent scholars are?

Acts 16:31
Romans 1:16
Romans 16:24
1 Cor. 5:4
2 Cor. 11:31
Eph. 3:14
1 Thess. 3:11
1 John 1:7
Rev. l:9b

Jesus Christ’s blood (which we can not be washed clean and saved without) is in italics in the following verse:

Col. 1:14

Matthew 18:11 says (KJV):

“For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost”

Guess what… in the Amplified it’s in italics. (See above what italics means in the Amplified)

Every born-again, Bible-believing Christian should endeavour to enlighten others about the dangers of the modern counterfeit Bibles. This must be done if we are to heed the admonition to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3b).

The King James Version, and Green’s Modern KJV are the only English Bibles in use today which is taken from the Textus Receptus. The New KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, but has some passages that are pushing it as far as translation is concerned.

You will notice that the modern versions have as their goal the "return to the original Greek texts." The New American Standard Bible, for example, is based on Nestle's Greek New Testament. Nestle's text, as the Westcott and Hort text, is the classical Greek of Alexandrian scholarship, written in Italy. It is not the koine Greek of New Testament scholarship, written in Asia Minor. Nestle's "original Greek" is built on the theory of Vaticanus (the Catholic manuscript which contains the seven corrupt books of the Apocrypha, never recognised by Jesus or Paul, and shows its source of corruption as Rome itself) as the most perfect text. Therefore "going to the Greek" to correct the Authorised King James Version involves running to Romanism to correct a Bible-believing Protestant translation.

[Christ Rocks On]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
The omissions of Jesus as “Christ” and “Lord” in the Amplified Bible:

The word “Christ” is omitted in:
Acts 9:20
Acts 15:11
1 Cor. 5:4
1 Cor. 9:1
1 Thess. 2:19
Hebrews 3:1

The word “Lord” is omitted in:
1 Timothy 1:1
1 Timothy 5:21
2 Timothy 4:1
2 John 3

The following verses show “Christ” or “Lord” in italics. Their explanation for this omission is as follows: "Italics indicate certain familiar words or passages found in the King James Version, but generally omitted now because they are not adeouately supported by more recent scholarship." Would any care to hazard a guess as to who the more recent scholars are?

Acts 16:31
Romans 1:16
Romans 16:24
1 Cor. 5:4
2 Cor. 11:31
Eph. 3:14
1 Thess. 3:11
1 John 1:7
Rev. l:9b

Jesus Christ’s blood (which we can not be washed clean and saved without) is in italics in the following verse:

Col. 1:14

Matthew 18:11 says (KJV):

“For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost”

Guess what… in the Amplified it’s in italics. (See above what italics means in the Amplified)

Every born-again, Bible-believing Christian should endeavour to enlighten others about the dangers of the modern counterfeit Bibles. This must be done if we are to heed the admonition to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3b).

The King James Version, and Green’s Modern KJV are the only English Bibles in use today which is taken from the Textus Receptus. The New KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, but has some passages that are pushing it as far as translation is concerned.

You will notice that the modern versions have as their goal the "return to the original Greek texts." The New American Standard Bible, for example, is based on Nestle's Greek New Testament. Nestle's text, as the Westcott and Hort text, is the classical Greek of Alexandrian scholarship, written in Italy. It is not the koine Greek of New Testament scholarship, written in Asia Minor. Nestle's "original Greek" is built on the theory of Vaticanus (the Catholic manuscript which contains the seven corrupt books of the Apocrypha, never recognised by Jesus or Paul, and shows its source of corruption as Rome itself) as the most perfect text. Therefore "going to the Greek" to correct the Authorised King James Version involves running to Romanism to correct a Bible-believing Protestant translation.

Krispy, so the Amplified is a false bible? In Matthew 18:11, for example, my Amplified says that this verse is italicized because this verse was not included in many manuscripts.

In the verses that point out that "Christ" was omitted, "Lord Jesus" was used instead. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a problem with that.

Ok, I'm confused, now. :confused

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by Christ Rocks On
Krispy, so the Amplified is a false bible? In Matthew 18:11, for example, my Amplified says that this verse is italicized because this verse was not included in many manuscripts.

In the verses that point out that "Christ" was omitted, "Lord Jesus" was used instead. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a problem with that.

Ok, I'm confused, now. :confused

If you go back and read the first part of my post I believe you'll find the answer there.

It's a lengthy discussion when you get into manuscripts, but basically there are two sets of manuscripts used in Bible translating... the Received Text, and the Alexandrian Text.

So yes, you are talking about two completely different set of manuscripts used.

Received Text - KJV, most of the NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, and most pre-1800's translations.

Alexandrian Text - Most modern versions including the RSV, Amplified, New World (JW Bible), Jersualem (Catholic), NIV, NASB, NLT, etc etc...

[BHiles]

Alexandria, Egypt

Called the great city of Confusion. Any wonder.

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by BHiles
Alexandria, Egypt

Called the great city of Confusion. Any wonder.

BHiles... perhaps you can elaborate on what I've said so far. You're pretty astute at this issue.

Be kind to Christ Rocks On... he's kool. :D:

[Christ Rocks On]

It's a lengthy discussion when you get into manuscripts, but basically there are two sets of manuscripts used in Bible translating... the Received Text, and the Alexandrian Text.

So yes, you are talking about two completely different set of manuscripts used.

Received Text - KJV, most of the NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, and most pre-1800's translations.

Alexandrian Text - Most modern versions including the RSV, Amplified, New World (JW Bible), Jersualem (Catholic), NIV, NASB, NLT, etc etc...

Well, this was part of the post I wasn't understanding, so thanks for explaining. I wasn't aware of different texts used, I'm still new at this, still learning.

BTW, I'm a female. :D: Thanks for the compliment.

Be kind to Christ Rocks On... he's kool.

BHiles, I hope you truly hope you weren't insulting me by your post.

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter

The omissions of Jesus as “Christ” and “Lord” in the Amplified Bible:

The word “Christ” is omitted in:
Acts 9:20
Acts 15:11
1 Cor. 5:4
1 Cor. 9:1
1 Thess. 2:19
Hebrews 3:1

The word “Lord” is omitted in:
1 Timothy 1:1
1 Timothy 5:21
2 Timothy 4:1
2 John 3

The following verses show “Christ” or “Lord” in italics. Their explanation for this omission is as follows: "Italics indicate certain familiar words or passages found in the King James Version, but generally omitted now because they are not adeouately supported by more recent scholarship." Would any care to hazard a guess as to who the more recent scholars are?

Acts 16:31
Romans 1:16
Romans 16:24
1 Cor. 5:4
2 Cor. 11:31
Eph. 3:14
1 Thess. 3:11
1 John 1:7
Rev. l:9b

Jesus Christ’s blood (which we can not be washed clean and saved without) is in italics in the following verse:

Col. 1:14

Matthew 18:11 says (KJV):

“For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost”

Guess what… in the Amplified it’s in italics. (See above what italics means in the Amplified)

Every born-again, Bible-believing Christian should endeavour to enlighten others about the dangers of the modern counterfeit Bibles. This must be done if we are to heed the admonition to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3b).

The King James Version, and Green’s Modern KJV are the only English Bibles in use today which is taken from the Textus Receptus. The New KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, but has some passages that are pushing it as far as translation is concerned.

Therefore "going to the Greek" to correct the Authorised King James Version involves running to Romanism to correct a Bible-believing Protestant translation. [/B]

Oh dear. Well, as I've written many times before, I don't need repetition of words in the KJV to make my Lord and Saviour any more than He already is. Writing about them as "omissions" is backward. They were actually additions to manuscripts from a more recent period than the later manuscripts. Either way, Jesus is no less the Messiah when reading the older texts. Such reasoning just doesn't float.

Your attempt to say that Jehovah's Witness Bible is somehow in league with the New American Standard is pretty bad (as if the New American Standard and the JW's Bible are alike in their translation of key passages!). Not so.

The Amplified is actually a fine translation in many ways. The problem is that people want to declare one translation to be better than another. Even though the RSV may have been translated from the Alexandrian Text, there are numerous differences between it and the ASV or NASB or AMP. I would actually tell people to steer clear of the RSV. The KJV has its own problems, too.

My list of translations I enjoy using are:

American Standard Version, 1901 --
New American Standard Bible --
English Standard Version --
New King James Version --

Most often I juggle between the NASB and ESV. The New Living Bible is actually pretty good, too. I don't care for the Living Bible, though. I would sooner use the Amplified.

As the KJV Translators wrote:

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

Much in the margins of the KJV are in the NASB. (click here) (http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#proof)

Godspeed,
Matthew

Godspeed,
Matthew

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by pilgrimian
Oh dear. Well, as I've written many times before, I don't need repetition of words in the KJV to make my Lord and Saviour any more than He already is. Writing about them as "omissions" is backward. They were actually additions to manuscripts from a more recent period than the later manuscripts. Either way, Jesus is no less the Messiah when reading the older texts. Such reasoning just doesn't float.

Your attempt to say that Jehovah's Witness Bible is somehow in league with the New American Standard is pretty bad (as if the New American Standard and the JW's Bible are alike in their translation of key passages!). Not so.

The Amplified is actually a fine translation in many ways. The problem is that people want to declare one translation to be better than another. Even though the RSV may have been translated from the Alexandrian Text, there are numerous differences between it and the ASV or NASB or AMP. I would actually tell people to steer clear of the RSV. The KJV has its own problems, too.

Godspeed,
Matthew

Godspeed,
Matthew

Fact is... Mr. Recently Married Guy... either God's Word has been preserved, or He didnt keep His promise. While agreeing that the KJV has a few minor issues... the unlying Greek Text of it (the RT) testifies within itself (5,000 copies that are in perfect harmony with each other) to the fact that it is the preserved Word of God. The TWO manuscripts that make up the Alexandrian Text dont even agree with each other, and thats a fact that you can not refute.

5,000 copies passed down that are in perfect harmony (differing in only spelling and phrasing) .... or TWO manuscriptes that cant agree w/each other, and are not in perfect harmony...

Which to you believe?

The history of the RT is well documented and known.

The history of the Alexandrian Text is questionable at best, and you only have the word of the Catholic Church as to it's origin.

[KrispyKritter]

By the way... I'm NOT KJV-only.

I am, however, Received Text-only.

I utterly reject the Alexandrian Text.

I am smart enough to know that the KJV has some defects. For instance... rabbits dont chew their cud, as the Mosaic Law in the KJV indicates. The KJV translators were likely translating a name for an animal that was extinct by 1611, and misunderstood it to be a rabbit.

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
Fact is... ... either God's Word has been preserved, or He didnt keep His promise. While agreeing that the KJV has a few minor issues... the unlying Greek Text of it (the RT) testifies within itself (5,000 copies that are in perfect harmony with each other) to the fact that it is the preserved Word of God. The TWO manuscripts that make up the Alexandrian Text dont even agree with each other, and thats a fact that you can not refute.

The history of the Alexandrian Text is questionable at best, and you only have the word of the Catholic Church as to it's origin.

Dear me, am I walking the line--nearly falling into Catholic hands? Not sure why you need to use such tactics. I've been reading the NASB and ASV and NIV (believe it or not!) and have had no such theological quagmires. Are you warning people that if they read the Alexandrian Text that they may very well become Catholics!? What kind of angle is that?

I assume you're attempting to say (though I don't see a citing of Scripture) that Psalm 12:6-7 shows that the Scripture would be preserved. If you're not using this Scripture to attempt to say this...what proof do you have that God made this "promise."

Psalms 12:6-7
A Great "Word Preservation" Passage - Or Is It? (http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/psalm12.html)

Do you "utterly reject the Alexandrian Text"? Really? I guess it's amazing that God has used such an errant text to save so many people.

Godspeed,
Recently Married Matthew

[BHiles]

In ancient times Around the time of Ramses II and Seti I In the the ancient sunken ruins which upon Alexandria is built lay the ancient remains of a city. Within the sunken underwater city remains of the ancient Egyptian god of Chaos and Confusion, Seth can be found. This was where chaos and confusion were worshiped as a god.

At the end of the second century and all through out the third century, there was a rise of a heretical church and the heretical school of theology at Alexandria, Egypt. They advanced the false idea that the Bible should be interpreted in a non-literal and allegorical sense. The result of their heresy was that the original teaching of rapture was done away with because they couldn't understand or visualize it. They just didn't want to believe it.

These are the same people who held and rewrote the texts used to create the new versions of the Bible.

About 5% of all scriptural text are called the "Minority Text," or "Alexandrian Text." (This is because virtually all of the dissenting manuscripts came from Alexandria, Egypt.) These few manuscripts, while they are generally slightly older than the "Traditional Text" manuscripts, are vastly different. They are also vastly diverse among themselves. No two are alike. No two even resemble one another in many places. In fact, the two best known Alexandrian manuscripts, which are most often used to correct the KJV [Aleph & B], differ from each other in about 9,000 places in the New Testament.

[BHiles]

Originally posted by Christ Rocks On

BHiles, I hope you truly hope you weren't insulting me by your post.

:confused

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by pilgrimian
Dear me, am I walking the line--nearly falling into Catholic hands? Not sure why you need to use such tactics. I've been reading the NASB and ASV and NIV (believe it or not!) and have had no such theological quagmires. Are you warning people that if they read the Alexandrian Text that they may very well become Catholics!? What kind of angle is that?.

The question is not can you or cant you get truth from these Bibles. The truth is there... you're proof of that. But it causes one to question "what is true? How can we know since this version differs from this one, and that one differs from this one."

Duck, cuz here it comes...

It comes down to the original question in the Garden of Eden.. has God really said.... (fill in the blank)?

Originally posted by pilgrimian
I assume you're attempting to say (though I don't see a citing of Scripture) that Psalm 12:6-7 shows that the Scripture would be preserved. If you're not using this Scripture to attempt to say this...what proof do you have that God made this "promise."

You assume correctly.

Originally posted by pilgrimian
Do you "utterly reject the Alexandrian Text"? Really? I guess it's amazing that God has used such an errant text to save so many people.

I'm sure there has been one or two people that found the Lord as a result of Robert Tilton's "ministry" ... it doesnt mean I'm going to stop calling him a joke and a disgrace.

Originally posted by pilgrimian
Recently Married Matthew

Been Married For Awhile Now Krispy

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by pilgrimian
Psalms 12:6-7
A Great "Word Preservation" Passage - Or Is It? (http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/psalm12.html)

It is argued that the actual words, preserved and kept are used in the Bible of people rather that the words of Scripture. This is true, but virtually identical terms are employed to describe God preserving His Word. Coupled with forever they present the same thought as Psalm 12:7.

Ps 100:5 For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

Ps 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Ps 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.

Ps 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

WHOSE WORDS WILL ENDURE?

The emphasis of Psalm 12 is word., rather that people per se. It is the words of God which will prevail rather than the flattering lips of men.

they speak vanity

with flattering lips

with a double heart do they speak

the Lord shall cut off all flattering lips

and the tongue

that speaketh proud things

who have said

with our tongue will we prevail

our lips are our own

the words of the Lord

are pure words

To the oppression and nine-fold mention of the words of men (verses 1-4), God interposes with a promise of deliverance (verse 5), to which the Psalmist gives a glorious declaration about the words of the Lord (verse 6). This declaration, now introduced, needs it seems, to be rounded off and the parallelism completed.

Man's words:

flattering, double, proud --
though they boast that they will prevail (verse 4)
yet they will be cut off (verse 3)

God's words: pure --

thou shalt keep them, O Lord
thou shalt preserve them
from this generation for ever (verse 7)

THE ANTECEDENT QUESTION

Words (verse 6) is the nearest likely antecedent to them (verse 7). In sentence structure we naturally expect the antecedent to the pronoun them to be close at hand. If it is at a distance we do not expect another likely antecedent to intervene. A survey of the thems in the first twenty-five Psalms gives a clear demonstration of this principle.

A problem arises: Hebrew, like other languages, has grammatical gender, and here the pronoun them is masculine, while words is feminine. The more distant yet possible antecedents of verse five or verse one are masculine.

While we may assume that gender agreement will occur between a pronoun and its antecedent, the following authorities acknowledge that frequently this is not the case.

The standard Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley grammar says:

...masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives, (#135-0).

Also, the recent Hebrew grammar by Waltke and O'Conner:

The masculine pronoun is often used for a feminine antecedent. (Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns Publ., 1990, #16.4b).

In commenting on the passage itself, Rabbi Samson Hirsch writes:

Thou O Lord wilt constantly keep them, Thy promises...The word [them] has a masculine ending in order to stress the constancy and immutability of these assurances. (Psalms. New York: Feldheim Publ., 1960, p.85).

"THE MAIN HEBREW TRADITION"

It is argued that most commentators refer verse seven to the poor and needy rather than the words. Having taken the time visit four libraries here in London, I can say that it is also true that very few have devoted any attention at all to the passage (a point which Kutilek makes). Most seem merely to have followed the other without giving any reasons. Two or three mention the gender question, but there is little else.

Kutilek lists a number of earlier commentators who take the words position, but does not give enough notice to the fact that it is among recent major publications that a reappraisal seems evident. Scholarly works (sometimes liberal) acknowledge at least in part that it is the words that are being kept.

...it may refer to the promises (verse 6), i.e. 'keep them'. (Derek Kidner, Tyndale OT Commentaries, 1973).

...or the object ('them') may refer to the promises... (A.A. Anderson, New Century Bible; 1972).

This sincerity and integrity of the words of God is demonstrated by the fact that Yahweh "keeps" (cf. Jer. 1:12) his word. (H.J. Kraus, Psalms. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publ., 1988).

J. H. Eaton makes a remarkable assertion about the words interpretation.

...but we may rather follow the main Hebrew tradition: "Thou O Lord shalt keep them (i.e. watch over the words to fulfill them, Jer. 1:12)..." (Torch Bible Commentaries, 1967).

This is in line with our quotation above from Rabbi Hirsch. It was the position of Aben Ezra (died 1167), who was considered the foremost of the early rabbinical commentators. J.H. Eaton would have known that while some rabbinical opinion (as Rashi) disagreed with Ezra, yet he felt secure in saying that this was the main Hebrew tradition!

CONCLUSION

The words of God will endure in contrast to flattering lips which will be cut off.

[Christ Rocks On]

BHiles... perhaps you can elaborate on what I've said so far. You're pretty astute at this issue.

Be kind to Christ Rocks On... he's kool.

Did I miss something? :confused

[BHiles]

Originally posted by Christ Rocks On
Did I miss something? :confused

Oh now I understand. I was not referring to your confusion. I was referring to the confusion caused by the Alexandrian scripts. No Insult to you intended. :D:

[Christ Rocks On]

Originally posted by BHiles
Oh now I understand. I was not referring to your confusion. I was referring to the confusion caused by the Alexandrian scripts. No Insult to you intended. :D:

Ah, I see. :D:

I'm sorry if I jumped to conclusions. :):

[KrispyKritter]

Originally posted by Christ Rocks On
Did I miss something? :confused

No, BHiles and myself can sometimes come across as being abrupt w/people... I didnt want either of us to come across that way to you. I've discussed different things with you and found you to be honestly interested in different points of view, and I enjoy the discourse.

[Christ Rocks On]

Originally posted by KrispyKritter
No, BHiles and myself can sometimes come across as being abrupt w/people... I didnt want either of us to come across that way to you. I've discussed different things with you and found you to be honestly interested in different points of view, and I enjoy the discourse.

Oh, I see. Nah, I didn't get that with you guys in this thread. Thanks for the explanation. :):