Bible's to stay away from?????

[bearcats937]

I was just curious,i use KJV now but looking for something different.I grew up thinking that only KJV was the right one.What bible's do you suggest i stay away from and why?

[nooneuno]

The Message..as this is a paraphrase.

Good ones: New American Standard Version, and I still like my New International Version, ( I have an old Revised Standard Version I love too!)

[Diane 1611]

I agree with nooneuno about staying away from The Message translation. It's too simplistic for me. I just purchased a Life Application Bible and I love it! :nod It comes in different translations and I have the New Living Translation. There are cross references, profiles of important people, maps, etc. There is also a section about how to lead someone to Christ, which is awesome.

[cinlynn]

On "Focus on the Family" today.. they were talking about just this subject!

If you go to their website,(www.family.org) you'll find links to the translations to stay away from.. ie.. there are new versions that change (TONS of) scripture meaning.. AND.. there are versions that change God the Father.. to.. God the parent, or.. God the Father and Mother. :tsk

Here's a GOOD site, addressing that. http://www.cbmw.org/

[AnyDayNow]

...( I have an old Revised Standard Version I love too!)

Nooneuno, have you looked at English Standard Version? (ESV) It is actually revision of 1949 RSV and eliminates those "problem" passages the RSV had (young woman vs virgin, etc.). I am rapidly becoming BIG fan. Now use ESV for general reading, NASB for study. Great combo, IMO.

[Kung Pao Smurf]

I personally use a Life Application version of the NASB; I absolutely love it. :nod

[scottruff]

I've been working my way through the 1599 Geneva Bible (modern spellings.) Nice! http://www.genevabible.org/

[BloodoftheLamb]

stay away from bibles with upside down stuff on them!

Hate me if you want but I really like the KJV....just feels right to me..

[andy]

Hi,

If you are looking for an online source, please consider e-sword. It is a wonderful site with many many versions and resources. Also its free.:wave

[kattallysn1]

stay away from bibles with upside down stuff on them!

Hate me if you want but I really like the KJV....just feels right to me..
I agree. I am not too keen on the NIV. It has a lot of missing verses.

[carmen]

I also grew up with the KJV :):. I know use the NIV study bible, primarily because of the notes--which are excellent--although the modern language is also a nice thing to have.

[70thWeek]

Another one of these threads! Why am I always drawn into these? Anyway, stay away from the New World Translation. The Greek text on which it is based is fine, but they blatantly mistranslate in some places. It is the one produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

[70thWeek]

I agree. I am not too keen on the NIV. It has a lot of missing verses.

Is it that it is missing verses or that the KJV is including ones that aren't meant to be there? Our differences are because of what we hold to be the standard. For you, I assume, it is the KJV. For me, it is a rather involved process, trying to get as close to the original as possible. BTW, I'm not upset or trying to flame you or anything. I am simply offering my opinion. We are free to disagree.

The NIV is fine for church use and devotional reading, but serious study should not be done with it, since it is a dynamic equivalent work.

Ok, the can of worms has been openned. Sorry.

[70thWeek]

I was just curious,i use KJV now but looking for something different.I grew up thinking that only KJV was the right one.What bible's do you suggest i stay away from and why?

On a positive note, check out the New American Standard! It's a great translation.

[kattallysn1]

The New International Version is based on the 26th edition of the Greek text of Eberhard Nestle published in 1979. It, like the New American Standard Version which is based on Nestle's 23rd edition of 1969, is an Egyptian bible. These and most modern translations (except the New King James Version and New Scofield Version which are handled separately in this book) are all products of Origen's tainted manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt.
A few of the corruptions found in the New International Version and New American Standard Version are found under a previous section dealing with fundamentals. This work is by no means an exhaustive study of the many problems with these error riddled versions.
We suffice it to say, "You can't get good fruit from a bad tree." (Matthew 7:17, 18)

[AJSHOPE]

I personally like the NKJV. For the most part it keeps the meatiness of the KJV, except it eliminates the Old English thees, thous, thys and the likes. The Spirit Filled Life Bible (which is NKJV) is good because it has a lot of notes and explanations of certain words and concepts in certain verses.

[70thWeek]

The New International Version is based on the 26th edition of the Greek text of Eberhard Nestle published in 1979. It, like the New American Standard Version which is based on Nestle's 23rd edition of 1969, is an Egyptian bible. These and most modern translations (except the New King James Version and New Scofield Version which are handled separately in this book) are all products of Origen's tainted manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt.
A few of the corruptions found in the New International Version and New American Standard Version are found under a previous section dealing with fundamentals. This work is by no means an exhaustive study of the many problems with these error riddled versions.
We suffice it to say, "You can't get good fruit from a bad tree." (Matthew 7:17, 18)

The process of textual criticism is a little more involved than that. What makes these texts tainted? Is the fact that they differ from the KJV enough to make them tainted? What makes the KJV the standard?

[70thWeek]

The Spirit Filled Life Bible (which is NKJV) is good because it has a lot of notes and explanations of certain words and concepts in certain verses.

That's an excellent study Bible, although my opinion is slightly biased.

[Enlightenment]

I also grew up with the KJV :):. I know use the NIV study bible, primarily because of the notes--which are excellent--although the modern language is also a nice thing to have.

I don't know. Since the notes were done by committee it's easy to spot those notes that try to play both sides of the fence, or those notes that were done by representatives from particular denominations. While it is nice to have both viewpoints presented, ultimately it gets to be confusing.

[kattallysn1]

70th week, I have been reading about the KJV from here http://samgipp.com/GippBooks_Articles.html and also from various other sites. i just have a conviction about it the NIV. I am in no way trying to start a war. I just have disagreements on it thats all.

[bearcats937]

thank you everybody.

[Porkchop]

I personally will be using this one soon - Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible
but...do your research...there is so much misinformation and watered down text...I read somewhere that the NIV has more than 67,000 words that were changed from the most literal translation. I use the NIV and KJ. The NNIV I heard will be gender neutral?:twitch The Message is so paraphrased it is in my opinion not worth picking up. Research the people who write these paraphrsed books too...

Also do some reasearch on how the translations were done and it will give you insight as to how it might be "mistranslated" or slanted. You can do this on the internet and find some really good info.

[Servant]

I also like the NKJV. I have a NKJV study bible (thanks again Mailman Dan :yay) and a NIV study bible. When doing in-depth study of a section of scripture, I like to use an online bible to compare several different translations.


:):

[Harley]

I agree. I am not too keen on the NIV. It has a lot of missing verses.
Yeah- but they only took out the unpopular ones... :laugh

[Harley]

That's an excellent study Bible, although my opinion is slightly biased.
Most/all study Bibles are.

[Harley]

The process of textual criticism is a little more involved than that. What makes these texts tainted? Is the fact that they differ from the KJV enough to make them tainted? What makes the KJV the standard?

It was good enough for Paul.

[bearcats937]

and Paul is the man! :yay

[70thWeek]

Most/all study Bibles are.

Well, yes, but my opinion of that study Bible is biased. After all, my father did a lot of work for it, I sort of have to like it. Nevertheless, it is a very good study Bible.

[buzzardhut]

I've been working my way through the 1599 Geneva Bible (modern spellings.) Nice! http://www.genevabible.org/
and Tyndale http://faithofgod.net/TyNT/

[buzzardhut]

I personally will be using this one soon - Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible
but...do your research...there is so much misinformation and watered down text...I read somewhere that the NIV has more than 67,000 words that were changed from the most literal translation. I use the NIV and KJ. The NNIV I heard will be gender neutral?:twitch The Message is so paraphrased it is in my opinion not worth picking up. Research the people who write these paraphrsed books too...

Also do some reasearch on how the translations were done and it will give you insight as to how it might be "mistranslated" or slanted. You can do this on the internet and find some really good info.
Is your interlinear based upon Alexandrian or Antioch manuscripts?

[buzzardhut]

70th week, I have been reading about the KJV from here http://samgipp.com/GippBooks_Articles.html and also from various other sites. i just have a conviction about it. I am in no way trying to start a war. I just have disagreements on it thats all.
Thanx for the excellent link Kat :thumb

[kattallysn1]

Thanx for the excellent link Kat :thumb
Oh you are most welcome! I think the site is loaded with great info. :nod :thumb

[mrshoward]

I have a KJV Tim LaHaye prophecy Bible! Pretty cool.

[Christianmomof3]

It was good enough for Paul.
Paul who? The KJV was written long after the apostle Paul. He did not read or endorse it.

[buzzardhut]

Paul who? The KJV was written long after the apostle Paul. He did not read or endorse it.
Paul Bunyan :P:

I think he refers to the manuscripts that were translated to King James.

[Harley]

Paul who? The KJV was written long after the apostle Paul. He did not read or endorse it.
Just a joke at the potential expense of KJV is the standard position. :D:

[Harley]

Well, yes, but my opinion of that study Bible is biased. After all, my father did a lot of work for it, I sort of have to like it. Nevertheless, it is a very good study Bible.
I misread your post, I thought you were saying "it" was biased. Which is why I said most are, since the notes are written with a purpose.

[pilgrimian]

On a positive note, check out the New American Standard! It's a great translation.

Yepper...I am presently enjoying the pre-1995 Update. I prefer it, as they needlessly updated some things which were just fine with me (they added Bathsheba's actual name in the lineage of Yeshua, and it's not in the text...this is a big no-no in my book...they should have italicized it to show that it was added).

Stay away from The Message as a whole. Portions of it are good, and interesting. But never use it alone...NEVER. Some portions are pretty poor.

I would also stay away from the the New American Bible and New World Bible and a number of the paraphrases or dynamic equivalence translations. I like looking at the Amplified...but NASB and ASV and NKJV are unsurpassed in my mind.

Shabbat Shalom,
Matthew

[buzzardhut]

:mod Beware of the Renovare' Spiritual Formation Study Bible ! :mod
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/renovarestudybible.htm

http://renovare.org/index.asp

http://www.thebereancall.org/Newsletters/2005+Newsletters/107940.aspx

[70thWeek]

I view the Message as not a Bible, but a commentary on the Bible. If you view it that way, then it is fine, but it is not a true translation.

[Porkchop]

Is your interlinear based upon Alexandrian or Antioch manuscripts?

Well based on what the description says it is translated from the Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic text...so I'm not sure how that lines up with the Alexandrian or Antioch manuscripts... I am just getting into bible translation research so fee free to wax poetically if you know!!! My wife found this and thought it would be cool since we are trying to learn a little Greek and Hebrew.

[buzzardhut]

Well based on what the description says it is translated from the Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic text...so I'm not sure how that lines up with the Alexandrian or Antioch manuscripts... I am just getting into bible translation research so fee free to wax poetically if you know!!! My wife found this and thought it would be cool since we are trying to learn a little Greek and Hebrew.
That is Antioch :thumb

[Harley]

:mod Beware of the Renovare' Spiritual Formation Study Bible ! :mod
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/renovarestudybible.htm

http://renovare.org/index.asp

http://www.thebereancall.org/Newsletters/2005+Newsletters/107940.aspx
I like Renovare.

[70thWeek]

I like Renovare.

I've used some of their material in the past. they seemed ok to me.

[blitzkreig]

Dake's Study Bible.

Steer clear.:twitch

[pilgrimian]

The Bible is God's Word! (http://www.thebereancall.org/Newsletters/2005+Newsletters/107940.aspx)
Author: Dave Hunt
Publication Date: 8/1/2005

God never adjusts Himself or His Word to the tastes of men. He never changes anything to appeal to the corrupt appetites of the ungodly in any age—all must come to Him on His terms. He commands all men everywhere to repent because of coming judgment (Acts 17:30, 31). “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD…” (Is 55:7). There is no softening of the gospel to make it “seeker friendly.”

Many claim to seek God but never find Him. Yet He has promised: “Ye shall seek ME, and find ME, when ye shall search for ME with all your heart” (Jer 29:13). The true God must be sought on His terms. It is not a question of music, videos, or other gimmicks to attract the youth, or of icons, candles, rituals, or other embellishments to create an aura of “sacredness.” The truth asks no props, only our fervent desire. The earnest seeker must come to God in repentance and cry out to Him for mercy.


God has spoken in His infallible Word. We must honor what He has said. Truth is not negotiable. Yet many Christian leaders, promote wicked Bible versions such as Eugene Peterson’s The Message (NavPress, 1993: see TBC Oct ’95) that pervert God’s Word. Men like Peterson have no conscience about changing what God says, replacing His words with their own.


Peterson is praised for this perversion by many Christian leaders such as J.I. Packer, Warren Wiersbe, Jack W. Hayford, and Richard Foster, founder of the Renovaré Movement and General Editor of the Renovaré Spiritual Formation Bible (Harper San Francisco, 2005). Foster loves The Message because it supports that movement. Peterson is “Consulting Editor, New Testament” of the Renovaré Bible. He reduces much of Paul's vital treatment of the gospel in Romans to metaphor, which he says is the “opposite [of] precise use of language” (p. 2045).


The Renovaré movement’s major purpose is to subtly lead the church back into the occultism of the mystics of the early Roman Catholic Church through “spiritual disciplines” and “spiritual formation.” The Renovaré Bible is a major effort in that direction. A host of “scholars” contributed commentaries, among them Bruce Demarest, Professor of Theology at Denver Seminary; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; Tremper Longman III, Professor of Biblical Studies at Westmont College; Earl F. Palmer, pastor of University Presbyterian Church in Seattle, WA and on the Board of Trustees of the long-apostate Princeton Theological Seminary (as was Sir John Marks Templeton).


The Renovaré Bible includes the Apocrypha and declares that “Most of the Church throughout much of history has accepted the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture….”1 Not as Scripture. Nor were these 13 books, written during the time between Malachi and the birth of Christ, ever accepted by Israel as inspired. Indeed, 1 Maccabees states that God was not speaking through prophets and apologizes for its errors (9:27 and 14:41). Obviously, anything written during that silence from God could not be Scripture.


From the Apocrypha, the Roman Catholic Church justifies purgatory, prayers for the dead and their eventual redemption through a propitiatory sacrifice (thereby justifying the Mass), purchase of forgiveness of sins, worship of angels, prayers to the “saints” and their ability to intervene. Yet Renovaré asserts, “The Deuterocanonicals do not affect any central doctrine of the Christian faith.”2


The Apocrypha were never quoted by Christ or His apostles, though the Old Testament is quoted in the New more than 250 times. Even Renovaré does not put the Apocrypha on the same level as the Bible but as helpful for “spiritual formation.” Then why include it in the same volume as Scripture—and without any warning concerning its heretical teachings?!


The Renovaré Bible introduces what it calls “Spiritual Disciplines” to help one’s “spiritual formation.” Neither term is found in the Bible. Renovaré declares that the purpose of this study Bible is the “discovery, instruction, and practice of the Spiritual Disciplines.” In fact, many of these are occult “disciplines” not found in Scripture but advocated by the mystics as a means of getting in touch with God. Foster has been a major influence in seducing today’s church with the same practices—and now has edited a Bible for the express purpose of justifying this seduction.


A number of commendable “Spiritual Disciplines” are mentioned, but some that are not commendable: “solitude, confession…meditation and silence…secrecy, sacrifice, celebration.” These innocent words have a special meaning for Foster. Explaining his view of “celebration,” he writes: “We of the New Age can risk going against the tide. Let us with abandon...see visions and dream dreams....The imagination can release a flood of creative ideas [and] be lots of fun.” (Celebration of Discipline, Harper & Row, 1978, p. 170)


In the West, meditation means to think deeply about something, but in the East it means to empty the mind in order to open it to the spirit world, leading to mystical experiences of “God.” Purporting to reject Eastern mysticism, Foster says,“Christian meditation is an attempt to empty the mind in order to fill it.” He seductively suggests: “John was ‘in the Spirit on the Lord’s day’ when he received his apocalyptic vision (Rv 1:10). Could it be that John was trained in a way of listening and seeing that we have forgotten?...Let us have courage to...once again learn the ancient…art of meditation” (Celebration, pp. 14,15). The idea that John had a special technique for hearing from God is heresy of the worst sort, but foundational to Renovare’s promotion of “spiritual disciplines” and “spiritual formation”!


The arousal of the imagination through fantasy and visualization is a major theme in Foster’s Celebration. He acknowledges that “prayer through the imagination” was taught to him by Agnes Sanford, who popularized “inner healing,” a major source of much of the occultism in the Charismatic movement. (For documentation of her full-blown occultism, see TBC July ’89.) We have dealt with these errors in detail in The Seduction of Christianity, Beyond Seduction, and Occult Invasion.


Foster writes in Celebration, “In your imagination allow your spiritual body, shining with light, to rise out of your physical body.…Reassure your body that you will return….Go deeper and deeper into outer space until there is nothing except the warm presence of the eternal Creator. Rest in his presence. Listen quietly [to] any instruction given” (p. 27). This is astral projection and occult contact through the imagination and is the major technique used by shamans to contact their spirit guides.


Yet Foster claims that it leads to Christ and God: “Take a single event [from Scripture]. Seek to live the experience, remembering the encouragement of Ignatius of Loyola (Jesuit founder) to apply all our senses to our task…represent to your imagination the whole of the mystery…as an active participant….You can actually encounter the living Christ in the event, be addressed by His voice…touched by His healing power.…Jesus Christ will actually come to you.” Not so! You cannot call Jesus Christ from the right hand of the Father to appear to you—but any demon will be happy to pretend to be “Jesus” (p. 26).


In like manner, the Renovaré Bible honors Catholic heretics and occultists as “saints” and their writings as a framework within which to understand Scripture. The Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola are endorsed even though they involve occult techniques that have caused many to be demonized (see TBC Mar ’00).


Sadly, the Renovaré explanatory notes deny the Divine authorship of much of Scripture—even that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Yet it hypocritically declares, “We read the Bible literally, from cover to cover…[and] in context.”3 Renovaré claims that Genesis 1-11 is neither historic nor scientific,4 and that the entire book of Genesis is merely a collection of myths:

Genesis began as an oral tradition of narrative stories passed down from generation to generation….These stories [gradually] took on theological meaning….Over time [they] were written down and collected together (Gen 12-50), and a prologue (Gen 1-11) was added….Borrowing from other creation accounts…stories with parallels to ancient Near Eastern religious narrative and mythology were reshaped with monotheistic intent….These strands of varied materials were gathered and edited into the written text….5

What wickedness for Christian “scholars” to unite with skeptics to declare that Genesis, which is foundational to the Bible, is just an edited compilation of mythology and folk tales! If Genesis is not literally inspired of God, then how can we have confidence in any other part of the Bible? What about Paul’s statement that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God”


(2 Tm 3:16) or Peter’s “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pt 1:21) or Christ’s many quotations from Genesis and references to “the things that Moses commanded” (Mt 8:4; 19:7; Mk 1:44; 7:10; 10:3, 4; 12:19, 26; Lk 16:29-31, etc.)?


Contrary to Renovaré, the Bible itself declares in numerous places that under the inspiration of God Moses wrote the Pentateuch: “And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book…and Moses wrote all the words of the LORD…and Moses wrote this law, and delivered it…unto all the elders of Israel….And…Moses...commanded the Levites…put it in…the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God.…” (Ex 17:14; 24:4; Dt 31:9, 25, 26, etc.).

[Harley]

I started reading the article by Dave Hunt - (though I am unfamiliar with who he is).

I got a bit bogged down by the hyperbole in the third paragraph, but then came to a complete impasse when I reached the first sentence of the fifth.

Maybe Dave Hunt has some valid points, but I'll never know since I can't fully trust a man that so easily and extremely assumes and imbues motives into other people's ministries.

Too bad too, I was hoping to learn something.

[frisian1970]

Christian Chat
The place where Christians go to chat about various things, including issues related to the Word of God, but not the place for debating the validity of His Word or the translated version one uses.

[70thWeek]

I don't even know where to begin with Hunt's article.

[LeahIA]

No matter which one I read (yes, I read from The Message), I seem to always come back to my KJV or NKJV to study from.

[Harley]

No matter which one I read (yes, I read from The Message), I seem to always come back to my KJV or NKJV to study from.
This is good distinction, versions we read and vertions we study.

[Harley]

No matter which one I read (yes, I read from The Message), I seem to always come back to my KJV or NKJV to study from.
This is good distinction, versions we read and versions we study.

[Harley]

Rats!

[LeahIA]

Rats! :lol

[amaj4u]

The New International Version is based on the 26th edition of the Greek text of Eberhard Nestle published in 1979. It, like the New American Standard Version which is based on Nestle's 23rd edition of 1969, is an Egyptian bible. These and most modern translations (except the New King James Version and New Scofield Version which are handled separately in this book) are all products of Origen's tainted manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt.
A few of the corruptions found in the New International Version and New American Standard Version are found under a previous section dealing with fundamentals. This work is by no means an exhaustive study of the many problems with these error riddled versions.
We suffice it to say, "You can't get good fruit from a bad tree." (Matthew 7:17, 18)


Is it your assertion that the KJV and the Scofield Bible are without errors? If that is the case, you might want to do a little more research into those translations.

[SteelRoots]

Christian Chat The place where Christians go to chat about various things, including issues related to the Word of God, but not the place for debating the validity of His Word or the translated version one uses.

[scottruff]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/KJV.HTM

My contribution to the battle of the links. So there!

[kattallysn1]

Is it your assertion that the KJV and the Scofield Bible are without errors? If that is the case, you might want to do a little more research into those translations.
I do not believe the KJV has errors. Maybe you should do some research too.

[kattallysn1]

QUESTION: What if there really ARE mistakes in the King James Bible?

ANSWER: Then it's up to YOU to find the Book that God was talking about in Psalm 12:6,7 and Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:35.

EXPLANATION: I learned a great lesson in the late 1960's. I watched on television as riotous hippies burned down the Bank of America offices. Other rioters razed entire neighborhoods to the chant of "Burn, Baby, Burn." The hippies' claim was that they had to burn this country to the ground in order to build a new one. And THAT is what I learned: ANY hippie can burn down a building, but I've NEVER seen even one building that a hippie built.
The cruel truth is that when you become a rebel against authority, such as the hippies were, you become an EXPERT in the art of destruction (II Peter 2:9-15). A life committed to destroying is difficult to reverse. Thus, hippies know how to destroy buildings which were built by others. But they cannot build anything in a productive manner that improves on what they destroyed.
This rebellious hatred for AUTHORITY is also manifested in the rabid attacks on the Holy Bible by self-proclaimed scholars. They can wax eloquent in their destructive criticism of God's perfect Book. Then after reducing it to ashes in the hearts and minds of students and church members, are unable to replace it with anything that even compares with the divine writings they have so viciously attacked.
If you have been convinced by some spiritual hippie that the King James Bible has mistakes in it, then I suggest you ask them to REPLACE it with a Bible that is perfect.
They may point to the New International Version, or New American Standard Version, or New King James Version as a "better translation." But no one will DARE to claim that any of these are the Bible referred to in Psalm 12:6,7 or Matthew 24:35.
If you press the issue they will most likely run you through the brambles and briers of the claim that God's Word is found only in "the Greek." But the fact is that their very limited knowledge of the original languages leaves them unable to read, study or preach from either Hebrew or Greek. Even if they COULD translate either the Textus Receptus or the local Egyptian text of Alexandria literally, they would be forced to admit that there are readings in both that they cannot accept as infallible.
The FACT is, that, like their hippie counterparts of the late 1960's they find themselves standing on a pile of smoldering ruins, without any ability whatsoever to rebuild even an outhouse, let alone render a perfect Bible.
No, if you have been convinced by someone that the King James Bible has errors IN SPITE of the facts, then you have accepted that thesis for only one reason; your love for and loyalty to the Bible's antagonist. The critic is your father, brother, pastor, youth director, college professor, or just someone you love too much to confront or withstand on the Bible issue.
So, if you have been convinced by someone that the Authorized Version has mistakes in it, you should toss your King James Bible into the wastebasket on top of your NIV, NASV, NKJV and both of the Greek texts. Then go to that person, fall on your knees, kiss their ring and say, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"
http://samgipp.com/answer/gipp_answer_index.html

[70thWeek]

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.

Psalm 12:7 You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever.

You do realize that "words" in feminine and the "them" in verse 7 is masculine right? Could the "them" be talking about the faithful? Nevermind the fact that this is from Psalms, which is poetic language.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

No one has suggested that his words have passed away.

As for the site from which this article came, it has some errors and accusations that cannot be substantiated. At one point the author equates Bible belief with being a King James only Bible believer. I call this source less than credible.

[blitzkreig]

Pilgrimian I just can't get my mind around the possible association of Peterson and J.I. Packer ... I think Hunt needs to take a vacation ... :twitch

[buzzardhut]

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/KJV.HTM

My contribution to the battle of the links. So there!
"Far Superior" is satan's favorite key phrase for his tainted text.

[frisian1970]

At one point the author equates Bible belief with being a King James only Bible believer. I call this source less than credible.:twitch

[70thWeek]

"Far Superior" is satan's favorite key phrase for his tainted text.

Wait, wait, wait. Can we show some restraint with the adjectives please? What qualifies any text as being from Satan?

[70thWeek]

:twitch

He also denies the existence of the LXX. I can't really take this particular source seriously.

[buzzardhut]

Wait, wait, wait. Can we show some restraint with the adjectives please? What qualifies any text as being from Satan?
That is why I restrained with 'tainted' and not 'owned'

[70thWeek]

That is why I restrained with 'tainted' and not 'owned'

And what was Satan's role?? Is there any proof?

[frisian1970]

He also denies the existence of the LXX. I can't really take this particular source seriously.
That is because the LXX wasn't in the replacement language...English.

[Harley]

70thWeek - love the avatar... wish I'd thought of it!

[buzzardhut]

And what was Satan's role?? Is there any proof?
satan's role is still the same today as was yesterday.
it can be summed up as "yea hath God said?" or "yes we know God said that but did he really mean it that way?"

[70thWeek]

But what does that have to do with texts?

[70thWeek]

70thWeek - love the avatar... wish I'd thought of it!

Thanks, I love it!

[kattallysn1]

Sheesh!!!

[frisian1970]

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/transaid.html#3

That below, stated by the "hallowed" translators of the KJV...


...About the Greek Septuagint

"But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal." (emphasis added)

"It is certain, that that Translation was not so sound and so perfect, but it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or Apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to them, to take that which they found, (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though they made a Translations to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing a witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded." (emphasis added)

"The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doeth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did comdemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it...which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and comment it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God." (emphasis added)

[70thWeek]

Now, I agree that the legend of 70 independent translators getting the same translation is simply a legend, but come on, the NT writers were well aware of the LXX and even quoted from it.

[buzzardhut]

But what does that have to do with texts?
There is the far superior, most reliable, high scholarly, perverted Alexandrian manuscript.
And the simple preserved Antioch manuscript.

[frisian1970]

Now, I agree that the legend of 70 indepent translators getting the same translation is simply a legend, but come on, the NT writers were well aware of the LXX and even quoted from it....which the supposed "inspired" translators of the KJV understood AND stated. :doh

[70thWeek]

There is the far superior, most reliable, high scholarly, perverted Alexandrian manuscript.
And the simple preserved Antioch manuscript.

What makes it perverted? The fact that it doesn't align with the KJV? What about I John 5:7-8? Where is any real evidence for the long reading to be included?

[buzzardhut]

...which the supposed "inspired" translators of the KJV understood AND stated. :doh
I don't think the emphasis should be on King James and his translators as much as the manuscripts they used. Including Tyndale, Erasmus, and Wycliffe.

[buzzardhut]

What makes it perverted? The fact that it doesn't align with the KJV? What about I John 5:7-8? Where is any real evidence for the long reading to be included?
Emphasis not on KJV but on the manuscripts used and how they were handled and how they contradict one another.

[70thWeek]

Emphasis not on KJV but on the manuscripts used and how they were handled and how they contradict one another.

OK, but still, I see nothing that one make one "perverted" and imply satanic influence.

[bearcats937]

You know that im more confused now then i was before. :frusty I will figure it out,thanx everybody! :wave

[70thWeek]

You know that im more confused now then i was before. :frusty I will figure it out,thanx everybody! :wave

Sorry.

[bearcats937]

Dont worry about it.Everybody believes what they do for a reason.I just didnt want to get a bible where things was missing that shouldnt be or they change the verses wrong.I heard NIV was really bad about this,thats why i asked the question.I just find KJV kind of hard to understand sometimes.

[buzzardhut]

OK, but still, I see nothing that one make one "perverted" and imply satanic influence.
The Alexandrian text had too many fingers upon it.
Religious men who felt the need to change verses to fit their theology and personal doctrines.
The Antioch manuscripts stayed untouched and just copied word for word.

[bearcats937]

The Alexandrian text had too many fingers upon it.
Religious men who felt the need to change verses to fit their theology and personal doctrines.
The Antioch manuscripts stayed untouched and just copied word for word.

Well what Bibles use Antioch manuscripts? and how do you know?

[frisian1970]

Dont worry about it.Everybody believes what they do for a reason.I just didnt want to get a bible where things was missing that shouldnt be or they change the verses wrong.I heard NIV was really bad about this,thats why i asked the question.I just find KJV kind of hard to understand sometimes.
The NIV translates differently, than the KJV...which translated differently than the LXX, etc.

I would suggest prayerful consideration, and then trust God leading via the Holy Spirit...as you sort of stated...opinions are a dime a dozen when dealing with us humans. I believe God desires an intimate, prayerful relationship with Him and His word. Not a doctorate in textual criticism. Sometimes I lose focus of that.

[buzzardhut]

Dont worry about it.Everybody believes what they do for a reason.I just didnt want to get a bible where things was missing that shouldnt be or they change the verses wrong.I heard NIV was really bad about this,thats why i asked the question.I just find KJV kind of hard to understand sometimes.
Thats why I read a lot of different translations but use KJV as my filter for the final correct interpretation.

[70thWeek]

The Alexandrian text had too many fingers upon it.
Religious men who felt the need to change verses to fit their theology and personal doctrines.
The Antioch manuscripts stayed untouched and just copied word for word.

That's one opinion. Generally, in textual criticism, the shorter, harder to understand reading, is the one taken to be closer to the original, which would mean that the "perverted" readings are the ones in the Antiochan manuscripts. How do you know that they stayed word for word? We don't have the originals to compare. Textual criticism attempts to get close to the originals.

Example, I John 5:7-8 The shorter reading would leave a lot of questions. Then at some point, a scribe inserted "the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." Who imposed his theology there?

[bearcats937]

well thanx guys!

[buzzardhut]

Well what Bibles use Antioch manuscripts? and how do you know?
Now it gets even more confusing because only certain KJV Bibles are from Antioch.
You will find it in the preface of the Bible.
I am not the author of confusion.

[frisian1970]

Now it gets even more confusing because only certain KJV Bibles are from Antioch.
You will find it in the preface of the Bible.
I am not the author of confusion.
Was this the preface that was copied from the original autographs?

:laugh

[buzzardhut]

Was this the preface that was copied from the original autographs?
There are no originals.
Just copies.
You will find a preface in every Bible.
My Ryrie King James is Antioch.

[buzzardhut]

That's one opinion. Generally, in textual criticism, the shorter, harder to understand reading, is the one taken to be closer to the original, which would mean that the "perverted" readings are the ones in the Antiochan manuscripts. How do you know that they stayed word for word? We don't have the originals to compare. Textual criticism attempts to get close to the originals.

Example, I John 5:7-8 The shorter reading would leave a lot of questions. Then at some point, a scribe inserted "the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." Who imposed his theology there?
You don't know if a scribe inserted it or satan removed it.
I am glad I have my KJV

[70thWeek]

Ok, but the only Greek manuscript that contains it is from the 1500's!

[buzzardhut]

Ok, but the only Greek manuscript that contains it is from the 1500's!
It can be traced back to 100 AD.

[frisian1970]

You don't know if a scribe inserted it or satan removed it.
I am glad I have my KJV:faint Perhaps I finally understand why it is noted this is a topic for Apologetics, or rather NOT for Christian Chat.

[70thWeek]

Why am I drawn to these threads??????

[kattallysn1]

Why am I drawn to these threads??????
I gave up a page or 2 ago :doh :faint

[Moony2ns]

It is time to make Hank dance...



Go Hank! :whoo Go Hank! :whoo Go Hank! :whoo

:lock :whip DANCE!