Your Bible translation

[Dan_473]

First of all, most do not like the thought of having an absolute standard. They want themselves, their intellect. to be the standard. They want to decide what God has said.

Second, there is no contradiction or such between the two passages: one is figurative, the other literal, both having the same sense. The metaphor used in Psalm using the word ear is that member of the body whereby we hear the commands we are to obey, therefore faith come by hearing and hearing by the word of God. You see, His Divine nature alone, made it impossible for the Son, who was co-equal with the Father, to come under the law; therefore He prepared Him another nature, in which He could be placed under submission to Him.

It is impossible that anyone should have ears of any use without having a body, and it is through the ears that instruction unto obedience is received. It is to this the Jesus made reference when, in the language of prophecy, He declared, "He wakeneth morning by morning, He wakeneth Mine ear to hear as the learned. The Lord God hath opened Mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back" (Isa. 50:4, 5). So the figure used in Psalm 40:6 intimated that the Father did so order things toward the Messiah that He should have a nature wherein He might be free and able to be in subjection to the will of God; intimating, moreover, the quality of it, namely, in having ears to hear, which belong only to a "body."

Thank you for the interesting response!

now I think when most people speak of an absolute standard, they are referring to the actual words. So if the actual words don't match, it would be considered a mistake.

 

[Tinkerbell725]

The word of God is pure. What is meant by pure in the Bible? The levites were considered pure by God despite being sinners. Why? Because they try their best to be honest. For God, honesty is good enough to be pure. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. The KJV translators only had editions. No revisions like the modern Bibles. They only edited typographical errors but did not deliberately change words that change the meaning or omit words and verses. They believe it is perfect that they don't feel the need to revise it.

 

[Dino246]

If we don't have the pure words of God translated in the English language, then man's education is going to be the final authority on what God has said.

Given that it was educated men who translated the Bible into English, "man's education" is the "final authority" no matter which translation you prefer.

 

[Dino246]

What if a version contradicted itself. Wouldn't you have grounds to claim that version is not a faithful witness?

We've been around this mulberry bush already. Your double standard prevents you from accepting reality on this matter. I don't think we need to repeat the matter.

 

[Dino246]

The word of God is pure. What is meant by pure in the Bible? The levites were considered pure by God despite being sinners. Why? Because they try their best to be honest. For God, honesty is good enough to be pure. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. The KJV translators only had editions. No revisions like the modern Bibles. They only edited typographical errors but did not deliberately change words that change the meaning or omit words and verses. They believe it is perfect that they don't feel the need to revise it.

Fallacious reasoning. Read my previous reply to you.

 

[Tinkerbell725]

I have no respect for Bible scholars who corrupt the word of God. Their higher education has made them lose common sense.


Many people corrupted the word of God. It's a widespread conspiracy.


2 Corinthians 2:17 King James Version (KJV)

17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

 

[fredoheaven]

Given that it was educated men who translated the Bible into English, "man's education" is the "final authority" no matter which translation you prefer.

The king's men considered themselves as "poor instrument to make God's holy truth to be yet more and more known unto the people" despite of the degrees they hold. They are of a pen of ready writer. Their final authority is the scriptures being diligently compared every known materials not only Greek or Hebrew but also of the other tongues available.

 

[Ahwatukee]

I voted "Other" and that because I believe that it is a good idea to address all of the interpretations. I personally started with the KJV and later bought a NIV. However, for many years now, if I am looking up any specific verse of scripture, I will bring that scripture up in parallel so that I can view each one of the major interpretations for that verse. I do this with most of my studies including how it appears in the Interlinear.

I don't think that anyone should be restricted to just one translation.

 

[John146]

Given that it was educated men who translated the Bible into English, "man's education" is the "final authority" no matter which translation you prefer.

Not if one believes God was in it and made sure every word is pure as translated in which I do.

 

[Dino246]

The king's men considered themselves as "poor instrument to make God's holy truth to be yet more and more known unto the people" despite of the degrees they hold. They are of a pen of ready writer. Their final authority is the scriptures being diligently compared every known materials not only Greek or Hebrew but also of the other tongues available.

All true, but their humility is no guarantee of their accuracy, and the materials they had available to them were few and limited in scope compared to the wealth of materials available today.

 

[Dino246]

Not if one believes God was in it and made sure every word is pure as translated in which I do.

Then you have an a priori bias for which evidence is irrelevant.

 

[Dino246]

I have no respect for Bible scholars who corrupt the word of God. Their higher education has made them lose common sense.

Many people corrupted the word of God. It's a widespread conspiracy.

2 Corinthians 2:17 King James Version (KJV)

17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

How exactly is your conspiracy theory, which is absent of evidence, relevant to the thread?

 

[Tinkerbell725]

Modern versions are from the alexandrian text from Egypt. While KJV is from textus receptus text similar to byzantine text from Antioch where the first christian church was establised and disciples were called Christians first.

Acts 11: 25-28
Acts 14:26-28
Acts 13:1-3


https://www.preservedword.com/content/the-biblical-witness-against-the-alexandrian-text/



Acts 18:24-26 King James Version (KJV)

24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

 

[Dino246]

Modern versions are from the alexandrian text from Egypt. While KJV is from textus receptus text similar to byzantine text from Antioch where the first christian church was establised and disciples were called Christians first.

Acts 11: 25-28
Acts 14:26-28
Acts 13:1-3

https://www.preservedword.com/content/the-biblical-witness-against-the-alexandrian-text/

Acts 18:24-26 King James Version (KJV)

24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Genetic fallacy; irrelevant.

 

[Tinkerbell725]

Genetic fallacy; irrelevant.

That's a fallacy fallacy: irrelevant.

 

[posthuman]

In order for Scripture to interpret itself, don't you have to have the correct words? I never want to be the determining factor on which words are correct and which are not.

sure sounds to me like you're arguing for reading the Bible in its original languages, not English
the 'correct words' IMO would be the ones in the language it was written, not this language we are speaking, a language of a people in the ends of the earth, almost as far away from Israel as you can get on a globe.

some of the differences are stemming from differences between the septuagint vs masoretic texts. for me this is the biggest hurdle, because i'm not qualified to judge between them. but they are not differences that change the gospel or change the truth -- typically, what i do is try to understand the Christology of a passage that seems to vary a lot between translations. then, if one source seems to agree with the Christology and the other seems to confound it, i consider that to be evidence that the one supporting the Christology is the correct one.
i look at passages that seem to vary greatly in translation as treasures; something amazing is in them, speaking of Christ - something difficult to understand and very much worth digging out. my faith isn't challenged by such things; quite the opposite, i'm excited by them! it means i've found a wonderful thing, to meditate on.

 

[posthuman]

Modern versions are from the alexandrian text from Egypt. While KJV is from textus receptus text similar to byzantine text from Antioch where the first christian church was establised and disciples were called Christians first.

what i've been told is that one of the reasons modern texts do not strictly follow the textus recepticus as the kjv and its derivatives do, is that scholarship in the centuries since the first few english language Bibles were translated has discovered a great number more ancient manuscripts than were available in the 16th century, and revealed that the byzantine area scribes were much more likely to edit, redact, and add to texts when copying than the alexandrian area scribes, who held accuracy in comparatively higher regard, whereas the byzantine monks had the attitude that interpretive changes were sometimes necessary. that there are statistically far more identifiable and traceable errors in byzantine families of copied texts, that this is why in the relative modern era, they are not trusted to the same degree, and the alexandrian text families are favored.

i'd like to know the facts of this, given in an unbiased way. i'm just relating an account i've heard through a not a few sources.

 

[fredoheaven]

All true, but their humility is no guarantee of their accuracy, and the materials they had available to them were few and limited in scope compared to the wealth of materials available today.

The fact is almost all of the available witnesses is in favor of the KJV. Only a few manuscripts that cannot understand each others favors the newer versions and what welath of materials available today? they are only representatives of manuscripts in a corrupt nature like the Sin-Vat.

 

[Tinkerbell725]

what i've been told is that one of the reasons modern texts do not strictly follow the textus recepticus as the kjv and its derivatives do, is that scholarship in the centuries since the first few english language Bibles were translated has discovered a great number more ancient manuscripts than were available in the 16th century, and revealed that the byzantine area scribes were much more likely to edit, redact, and add to texts when copying than the alexandrian area scribes, who held accuracy in comparatively higher regard, whereas the byzantine monks had the attitude that interpretive changes were sometimes necessary. that there are statistically far more identifiable and traceable errors in byzantine families of copied texts, that this is why in the relative modern era, they are not trusted to the same degree, and the alexandrian text families are favored.

i'd like to know the facts of this, given in an unbiased way. i'm just relating an account i've heard through a not a few sources.

If the evidence I posted is not enough then you can search for the truth in the Bible and see for yourself how dangerous these modern versions are.

 

[preston39]

You are absolutely correct. One of the primary objectives of modern versions was to undermine true Bible doctrine and it is evident to all who take the time to examine the changes.

It is very apparent with constructive review.