Is YOUR church doctrinal statement ONE with SATAN?

[Dino246]

I know you have, but have you ever thought about how lost people, the people of this world, views the Christian faith? I’ve talked with a few. They think Christians can’t agree on what God has said as they look on the hundreds of different versions of the Bible. And there’s a new one coming out each month. The Bible of the month club...lost people understand what the average believer fails to see.

So you should exercise some integrity and throw away your late-comer English Bible and use the first complete version instead.

Your argument works against you in the same way you intend it to work against others. It's a bad argument, like all the others you have used.

As for the implications, they are empty. I don't use a new version every month, nor does any non-KJVo Christian I know. Finally, it's a fallacious appeal to an ad hoc survey.

 

[John146]

We know that all of the Bibles say the same thing

I needed this😂😂😂

 

[Locoponydirtman]

I needed this😂😂😂

Ok well the KJV does tend to obfuscate many statements but the context is still the same.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

It's futile to attempt to change a mind once it is set on its own ideas.

 

[jaybo]

I know you have, but have you ever thought about how lost people, the people of this world, views the Christian faith? I’ve talked with a few. They think Christians can’t agree on what God has said as they look on the hundreds of different versions of the Bible. And there’s a new one coming out each month. The Bible of the month club...lost people understand what the average believer fails to see.

And this is based on..? I don't think that "lost people" view Christianity the way that you say they do, any more than if they go into a shoe store they think that people have 50 feet. People view Christianity by the way its adherents treat others, not how many Bibles are available.

Sorry, but I can't believe what you said about the "lost people" is true.

 

[jaybo]

They make excuses. We know that all of the Bibles say the same thing (with exception to Mormon and jw and other cults that actually do change the message) That translation and interpretation does not change the word of God, and his spirit speaks to us when we read the written word, which is why the men who did the translation and interpretation of the KJV actually stated as much in the preface of their own work.
We know that though there are some textual differences (due mostly to the metamorphosis that language goes through over time) they don't change the message or the context.
Ironically us Christian's will point to those who disagree with us on some minor point and say, "your" the reason the lost don't believe, when we know thats not true. The truth is that they don't believe because they reject because of their sin nature.
That argument is a spin off of the Chuck Finney, revivalist, gospel sales pitch, decision theology, error.

Excellent statement on the issue!

 

[jaybo]

So you should exercise some integrity and throw away your late-comer English Bible and use the first complete version instead.

Your argument works against you in the same way you intend it to work against others. It's a bad argument, like all the others you have used.

As for the implications, they are empty. I don't use a new version every month, nor does any non-KJVo Christian I know. Finally, it's a fallacious appeal to an ad hoc survey.

What is the first complete version? If you mean the first complete English Bible, it was produced by Miles Coverdale in 1535, using Tyndale's work together with his own translations from the Latin Vulgate or German text, or the Geneva Bible, first published 51 years before the KJV. The 1599 edition, still available, is excellent, better in fact than the KJV.

 

[fredoheaven]

This is why I used the multiple versions to show that most claim same view except the KJV.

Umm, multiple versions to confirmed your belief but most of these English multiple versions or of those mainstreams English Bibles have connected, compared themselves to the KJV, your exception of the KJV is another spot on.

As for the traditional pronouns “thou” and “thine” in reference to the Deity, the translators judged that to use these archaisms (along with old verb forms such as “doest,” “wouldest” and “hadst”) would violate accuracy in translation. Neither Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek uses special pronouns for the persons of the Godhead. A present translation is not enhanced by forms that in the time of the King James version were used in everyday speech, whether referring to God or man.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv-preface.html


In the history of English Bible translations, the King James Version is the most prestigious. This time-honored version of 1611, itself a revision of the Bishops' Bible of 1568, became the basis for the English Revised Version appearing in 1881 (New Testament) and 1885 (Old Testament). The American counterpart of this last work was published in 1901 as the American Standard Version. The ASV, a product of both British and American scholarship, has been highly regarded for its scholarship and accuracy. [earlier editions read, "it has frequently been used as a standard for other translations. It is still recognized as a valuable tool for study of the Scriptures"] Recognizing the values of the American Standard Version, the Lockman Foundation felt an urgency to preserve these and other lasting values of the ASV by incorporating recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources and by rendering it into more current English. Therefore, in 1959 a new translation project was launched, based on the time-honored principles of translation of the ASV and KJV. The result is the New American Standard Bible.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb-preface.html


The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV)... and, third, such capitalization is absent from the KJV Bible and the whole stream of Bible translations that the ESV carries forward.

https://www.esv.org/preface/

 

[fredoheaven]

What you've copied pasted were the later add ins.
Those are indicated by (...).
This is why I have what I copy/pasted because it was the original.

Seems to me that your Latinized quote is lacking weight. According to my source which I copy pasted here stated that "It was part of the text of a 2nd century Old Latin Bible. The passage is cited by Tertullian (died 220), Cyprian of Carthage (died 258), and Priscillian, a Spanish Christian executed on a charge of heresy in A.D. 385.6 It is found in "r", a 5th century Old Latin manuscript, and in a confession of faith drawn up by Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage, in 484. "

 

[fredoheaven]

I am aware of that but what I am using consists of 4 total Codex. They all just happen to confirm one another.

You're aware?? Pardon me but I will now play a doubting Thomas, certainly they were not the once original language commonly used during Christ ministry on earth as the expert says. Stated in the Letter to Bruce Metzger by J. Philip Hyatt, professor of Old Testament at the School of Religion at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, said

"The publicity I have seen appears to be attempting to make people believe this is the oldest Biblical MS. in existence, in the original language spoken by Jesus. Of course it is no such thing; even Mr. Adams did not claim that, but did not seem to care that Syriac, as a form of eastern Aramaic, is not the same as the Western Aramaic of Palestine"

So, sorry about this but I need to move on.

 

[biker]

Umm, multiple versions to confirmed your belief but most of these English multiple versions or of those mainstreams English Bibles have connected, compared themselves to the KJV, your exception of the KJV is another spot on.

As for the traditional pronouns “thou” and “thine” in reference to the Deity, the translators judged that to use these archaisms (along with old verb forms such as “doest,” “wouldest” and “hadst”) would violate accuracy in translation. Neither Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek uses special pronouns for the persons of the Godhead. A present translation is not enhanced by forms that in the time of the King James version were used in everyday speech, whether referring to God or man.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv-preface.html


In the history of English Bible translations, the King James Version is the most prestigious. This time-honored version of 1611, itself a revision of the Bishops' Bible of 1568, became the basis for the English Revised Version appearing in 1881 (New Testament) and 1885 (Old Testament). The American counterpart of this last work was published in 1901 as the American Standard Version. The ASV, a product of both British and American scholarship, has been highly regarded for its scholarship and accuracy. [earlier editions read, "it has frequently been used as a standard for other translations. It is still recognized as a valuable tool for study of the Scriptures"] Recognizing the values of the American Standard Version, the Lockman Foundation felt an urgency to preserve these and other lasting values of the ASV by incorporating recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources and by rendering it into more current English. Therefore, in 1959 a new translation project was launched, based on the time-honored principles of translation of the ASV and KJV. The result is the New American Standard Bible.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nasb-preface.html


The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV)... and, third, such capitalization is absent from the KJV Bible and the whole stream of Bible translations that the ESV carries forward.

https://www.esv.org/preface/

The Aramaic is Aramaic to English.
The Greek is the oldest known Greek text to English.
The Latin Vulgate is Jerome's original text to English.

The KJV is still a translation of the Greek to Latin Vulgate to English and it still does not match.

Spin this like you want, but your point is ridiculous in what you ASSUME!

 

[biker]

Seems to me that your Latinized quote is lacking weight. According to my source which I copy pasted here stated that "It was part of the text of a 2nd century Old Latin Bible. The passage is cited by Tertullian (died 220), Cyprian of Carthage (died 258), and Priscillian, a Spanish Christian executed on a charge of heresy in A.D. 385.6 It is found in "r", a 5th century Old Latin manuscript, and in a confession of faith drawn up by Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage, in 484. "

Doesn't matter, the Latin still was a translation of the Greek. And the Greek still disagrees with your assessment. Clearly, your 2nd Century Latin has a later add in.

 

[fredoheaven]

What is the first complete version? If you mean the first complete English Bible, it was produced by Miles Coverdale in 1535, using Tyndale's work together with his own translations from the Latin Vulgate or German text, or the Geneva Bible, first published 51 years before the KJV. The 1599 edition, still available, is excellent, better in fact than the KJV.

This need to a further proving about your Coverdale and Geneva bible which were important in the translation of the KJV but why the Geneva is excellent and even better than KJV? This needs proving or else it is just an hearsay. Would you cite some of this what you are trying to infer? Thanks

 

[biker]

You're aware?? Pardon me but I will now play a doubting Thomas, certainly they were not the once original language commonly used during Christ ministry on earth as the expert says. Stated in the Letter to Bruce Metzger by J. Philip Hyatt, professor of Old Testament at the School of Religion at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, said

"The publicity I have seen appears to be attempting to make people believe this is the oldest Biblical MS. in existence, in the original language spoken by Jesus. Of course it is no such thing; even Mr. Adams did not claim that, but did not seem to care that Syriac, as a form of eastern Aramaic, is not the same as the Western Aramaic of Palestine"

So, sorry about this but I need to move on.

This Aramaic Codex is dated around 78 AD:

• The earliest such Manuscript witness we have some knowledge of for The Aramaic New Testament , is from as early as the year 78 A.D., which is spoken about in J. S. Assemani's famous Bibliotheca, where it states, “At Edessa was a written Gospel, ancient but still legible.

Reference:
TheAramaicScriptures.com - Home

• These Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts and parts of the New and Old Testament, dating from the time of Jesus, are more than 1,000 years older than any previously known manuscripts. Until then, the earliest Hebrew documents in existence were 9th century AD copies of the Pentateuch.

Apocrypha, Aramaic, Canon, Codex, Papyrii, Septuagint, Syriac ...
www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN620NTHISTORY.htm

You should run along, because, YOU are way out of your league here!

 

[fredoheaven]

The Aramaic is Aramaic to English.
The Greek is the oldest known Greek text to English.
The Latin Vulgate is Jerome's original text to English.

The KJV is still a translation of the Greek to Latin Vulgate to English and it still does not match.

Spin this like you want, but your point is ridiculous in what you ASSUME!

I assume your lacking in your research my friend but anyway that would be fine for me.

 

[fredoheaven]

This Aramaic Codex is dated around 78 AD:

• The earliest such Manuscript witness we have some knowledge of for The Aramaic New Testament , is from as early as the year 78 A.D., which is spoken about in J. S. Assemani's famous Bibliotheca, where it states, “At Edessa was a written Gospel, ancient but still legible.

Reference:
TheAramaicScriptures.com - Home

• These Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts and parts of the New and Old Testament, dating from the time of Jesus, are more than 1,000 years older than any previously known manuscripts. Until then, the earliest Hebrew documents in existence were 9th century AD copies of the Pentateuch.

Apocrypha, Aramaic, Canon, Codex, Papyrii, Septuagint, Syriac ...
www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN620NTHISTORY.htm

You should run along, because, YOU are way out of your league here!

I guess you haven't read what I posted linked about Metzger. Before you know it , I have already read your reference and made research and came along with the link I posted. If i have to pay attention even critical scholars would have not agree with your research and the reference you ar making of specifically the aramaic one
TheAramaicScriptures.com - Home

 

[biker]

I guess you haven't read what I posted linked about Metzger. Before you know it , I have already read your reference and made research and came along with the link I posted. If i have to pay attention even critical scholars would have not agree with your research and the reference you ar making of specifically the aramaic one
TheAramaicScriptures.com - Home

I read exactly what you claimed.

But to use someone from Tennessee HICK is like pitting the Notre Dame football team against the School for the Deaf/Dumb/and the Blind!

 

[fredoheaven]

I read exactly what you claimed.

But to use someone from Tennessee HICK is like pitting the Notre Dame football team against the School for the Deaf/Dumb/and the Blind!

Then that might be fashioned as circular, nothings gonna changed but sounding such name calling is not good and proves nothing.

 

[biker]

Then that might be fashioned as circular, nothings gonna changed but sounding such name calling is not good and proves nothing.

You see it your way because you made your bed with it.

Scholars have backed J. S. Assemani's famous Bibliotheca findings for Centuries. If your Tennessee Hick wishes to oppose, I would only bet it is to make a name for himself and nothing else.

 

[Dino246]

You see it your way because you made your bed with it.

Scholars have backed J. S. Assemani's famous Bibliotheca findings for Centuries. If your Tennessee Hick wishes to oppose, I would only bet it is to make a name for himself and nothing else.

Biker, we agree regarding the KJV, but if you're calling Bruce Metzger a "hick", you're out of line. First, he was the pre-eminent American scholar of biblical languages in the late 1900's. Second, he's dead.