Dont forget Sin-Vat from the philosophical schools of Clement, Origen,Arius,in Alexandria Egypt,and then the RCC
Favourite Bible Translations
- Thread starter true_believer
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I agree God is Holy and Faithful
Do you believe that Alulterers (Kurt Aland) And (Barbara Ehlers) were used by God,in creating the Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece), that supports all new translations?
Kurt Aland was a college professor in Germany, he ran off with Barbara Ehlers his student,22 years younger,and divorced his wife Ingeborg?
They both created this Greek Text,did God use unsaved adulterers?
Yea I forgot that, It's founded in Alexandrian School clothed with pagan philosophy-speculative, philosophical and allegorical in its interpretation of he Scripture. Thanks
I think that Grandville Sharp Rule sill been debated today. The application in your example does not deny the deity of Christ in the KJV rather strengthen them because of what the context which talk about the grace of God that brings salvation. Christ our Saviour gave himself, redeem us. Titus 3: 4, 6 is telling us about "God our Saviour" and Jesus is our Saviour too, so that the case of Titus 2;13 using "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" not the GSR, we are able to understand what it says. Is there denying of the deity? None and so far this is what I learned studying his words.
i actually picked the verse because it's very controversial among Christians. As time from 1611 continued more older Greek manuscripts were discovered and re translated by scholars, not Angels. I have also read that King James instructed His translators to put a spin that reinforces obedience to human authority figures. Puritans (Calvinists') Quakers and Anabaptists refused to bow, bend a knee or serve in the armies of the ruling European Monarchs. He also wanted to usurp the Popes authority. We can't be effective critical thinkers unless we investigate our own beliefs in the same ways the we investigate those we are opposed to. Otherwise we will always come to the conclusion that we were right and the others were wrong all along, regardless of the truth, It's part of our sinful, human nature.
King James wanting to usurp the popes authority was a good thing, and still is to this day, Smiles!
Not spiritually however they had a lot of people that they were the nearest humans that held 'Godlike supreme authority over people on earth. He/they also had enormous political power and influence. Kings envied them.
I find it really amusing that one person criticized me for not being humble about my qualifications, which is why I bring them up. Not to brag! Not to be arrogant, but to show I have really studied the Bible, not just listened to cult followers of Ruckman and others.
Then you tell me I am expressing opinions, meaning I don't know what I am talking about. So, am I arrogant or uneducated? Am I not humble, or just mouthing off about an opinion formed without any research or consideration of the facts. You can't have it both ways.
I am very well read where the Bible is concerned and very educated on Biblical issues, languages and hermeneutics. Throw in history, and some practical skills, and maybe understand I don't comment on things I am not sure about (there are Bible topics which I am not well versed in). When I comment, it is because I have read it and studied. Also I read real scholars, not the useless people who support KJVOism, and literally tell lies. No, the KJV is not the complete Bible text. There are just too many added verses. Verses which have been tracked back in history to the 2nd or 3rd century, and manuscript scholars know where these extra verses were added. Both in time, and within the actual ancient manuscript. Try studying about manuscript history, instead of blindly following this fruitless cult of KJVOism. Read the KJV if you like it and understand its limitations.
I do not understand KJV English. I would rather read it in English, French, German or Koine Greek and Hebrew. Why? Because I have studied those languages and I understand them. And I guarantee you, that no matter how much you love the KJV, it simply is not the best translation. Why? Because 7 very late Greek NT manuscripts were used, that were very corrupted. I think Erasmus, a Catholic priest, and the KJV Committee probably did a fair job considering how poor the manuscripts were. But today, with 6000 manuscripts, every word in every one of them tracked, followed and analyzed, we simply have so much more information today on Koine Greek, that those gentlemen in the 17th century. We also have more contemporaneous manuscripts of secular origin, which help us explain all the hapax legomena, or words that are found only once in the Bible. Bibles today leave out all those spurious verses the KJV people love to say are deleted words. Nope, the KJV has all those extra verses, which were added. Study the manuscript evidence, if your can pull yourself out of this stupid cult. I dare you!
Off Topic?
Translations is the topic, corruption in the new translations isnt something you want to hear
You dont want to hear the creator of the Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece) that supports all new translations was created by Adulterers Kurt Aland, Barbara Ehlers, and Homisexual union supporters, Roman Catholic Jesusit Cardinal (Carlo Maria Martini)
You dont want others to see these factual truths regarding new translations
Try Finding The Verses Below In Your NIV, ESV,
Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Acts 8:37
Roman's 16:24
Time Honored King James Version, 409 Years And Going Strong
A Masterpiece, The King James Bible and its translators, all confessing Christian's, scholars beyond comparison!
For a closer look at the King James Bible and its translators, check out the attached link
You obviously don't like Catholics. I get that. Nice people, but terrible religion, not biblical at all!
It's funny people who don't like Catholics are so willing to read and defend the KJV, which was translated by Erasmus, a Catholic priest. He is the one who inspired the KJV translation committee. Except, even the corrupted manuscripts he used, had no Johanine comma. But the pope and the RCC said it was in Jerome's Latin Vulgate from the 4th century AD, a very poor translation, because Jerome didn't know Greek very well, and he knew almost nothing about Hebrew. But, it is the only verse that supports the Trinity, so the pope would not listen to Erasmus, who said it was not in any manuscripts at all!
So, KJVO people, are you happy reading a translation basically done by a Catholic priest, under orders from Rome to translate it like Jerome's Vulgate, 12 centuries earlier? I prefer Protestant Bibles. That Protestants translated. Not Catholics or even Anglo-Catholic, which King James was.
Rom 10:17 (KJV) So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Rom 10:18 (KJV) But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
The word faith in verse 17 isn't the faith of believing something, the faith in that verse is our religion. For example, the Christian FAITH, the Muslim FAITH, the Catholic FAITH.
So then OUR RELIGION, comes by hearing. The hearing in that verse isn't sound vibrations hitting the inner ear, it's the recognition of God's voice in scripture.
Understanding HOW GOD SPEAKS produces the components of our Christian Faith.
HEARING comes BY the word of God. The word of God in that verse is the word of God. It's not a lexicon, it's not a concordance, it's not a perverted impostor of the word of God, it's not a culmination of multiple impostors of the word of God, it is the PURE, INERRANT word of God.
So then, OUR RELIGION come by HEARING GOD's VOICE in scripture, and hearing God's voice in scripture comes by reading the PURE, INERRANT word of God.... The Spirit of Christ.
Rom 10:18 (KJV) But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
The word faith in verse 17 isn't the faith of believing something, the faith in that verse is our religion. For example, the Christian FAITH, the Muslim FAITH, the Catholic FAITH.
So then OUR RELIGION, comes by hearing. The hearing in that verse isn't sound vibrations hitting the inner ear, it's the recognition of God's voice in scripture.
Understanding HOW GOD SPEAKS produces the components of our Christian Faith.
HEARING comes BY the word of God. The word of God in that verse is the word of God. It's not a lexicon, it's not a concordance, it's not a perverted impostor of the word of God, it's not a culmination of multiple impostors of the word of God, it is the PURE, INERRANT word of God.
So then, OUR RELIGION come by HEARING GOD's VOICE in scripture, and hearing God's voice in scripture comes by reading the PURE, INERRANT word of God.... The Spirit of Christ.
I know you don't understand noun cases, and how Greek, (and German, for that matter) don't use word order to point to what order a sentence is in like English.
There are 4 main cases, (the fifth, Optative was dying out by the time the manuscripts of the Bible were written.)
Nominative - this is the subject of the sentence. The man is here. Man is the subject of the sentence. We know because in English, word order tells us that generally the first noun/adjective in the sentence is the subject. NOT in Greek! You can make a sentence that says Here is the man. Here is not the subject, but an object. The man is still the subject in Greek. In fact, John 1, is all about where the nouns are placed, and what endings they have on the words, to confirm the case of the noun. The JWs decided to put English under the Greek, then translated it to Greek. It is the biggest reason the JWs don't believe in the deity of Christ, which is a terrible heresy. Because the translators of the "New World Translation" had not qualifications in Greek at all. Hence an major error in doctrine. This is the mistake in Luke 2:14! Somehow the translators on the KJV had manuscripts which followed Erasmus. Thus it became, "and on earth peace, good will toward men." That is universalism, which the Bible doesn't promote ever. I'm sure even the KJV onlyists can agree that salvation is for those whom God calls, and saves. Jesus did not die for everyone, because some people rejected the gospel. Many people reject the gospel today! And only the very latest manuscripts make this mistake. So, definitely a mistake in your KJV translation, even if you refuse to see it.
Genitive - nouns of possession. In Greek, it will often say, "the friend of his." They don't have abbreviations to help them, and possessive pronouns are rarely used this way. We say, "his friend," which is much less awkward for English. Genitive is the issue with the way Luke 2. Or, Genitive uses the word "OF" so notice our little exam sentence has exactly that word in it. It needs to have the word being a descriptor of an noun. Instead, it was translated wrongly, to another noun case. Eudokias or εὐδοκίας, is the issue here. The 7 corrupt manuscripts that Erasmus used, might not have been in the Genitive. It is easy to drop off the sigma at the end, turning it into the nominative. Especially in late manuscripts that might have been copied through thousands of generations of manuscripts. All it would take was the sigma dropping off on ONE manuscript. If it became a popular manuscript, the error gets copied down for centuries, with wrong translations in the later manuscripts repeated over and over.
Dative usually shows to or for or indirect direction. It is also known in English as the indirect object. There are, or course other than those, but it is more a sign of direction, and you will often find nouns in Greek as the object the dative is going towards.
Finally, the Accusative. This is the direct object. In English, it is what the verb is doing to a noun. So, "The man walked to the end." End is the Accusative case, at the end of the sentence. Not part of our worries about Luke 2:14, which the KJV got wrong.
I'm attaching a link which I am hoping is easier than the last link I posted on this issue. You have nothing but blind faith in a bad translation. A poor opinion! But modern Bibles tell the truth. God's peace is only for those who believe - those who believe in Christ, and follow him. No universalism, like the KJV.
https://jesusparadigm.com/2014/12/23/luke-214-and-textual-criticism/
Of course, if you don't know Greek grammar or at least German grammar, let alone English grammar, you will not only not find the mistake, but not understand it when it is repeatedly explained to you. It's pretty much another reason I won't read the KJV. It doesn't use our grammar, and it fails to produce the right translation.
Enough said, I'm more or less out of here. Tired of having to explain such a simple point of grammar, to people that don't know grammar, is not my thing. You will find out you were wrong worshipping a translation, when Jesus returns.
When I stand for the KJV, it's not out of pride, ignorance nor arrogance, it's out of love for my brothers and sisters. I have the hearing that I just talked about and it is my goal to help others obtain that hearing.
It's not hard to get that hearing, it's not something we work for, it's not favoritism from God, it simply comes be reading the ONLY INERRANT bible and believing every single word as written. We can't add to it, we can't take away from it and we can't change it's meaning.
We are to be CONFORMED to the IMAGE of Christ. The bible is the IMAGE of Christ. We can't conform the image of Christ to the image that we want Christ to be.
It's not hard to get that hearing, it's not something we work for, it's not favoritism from God, it simply comes be reading the ONLY INERRANT bible and believing every single word as written. We can't add to it, we can't take away from it and we can't change it's meaning.
We are to be CONFORMED to the IMAGE of Christ. The bible is the IMAGE of Christ. We can't conform the image of Christ to the image that we want Christ to be.
so, what your favorite translation be??
i have no idea, you are not out front about it..
haha. sorry man, when i saw you in this thread, i just could not resist.....
Your high education failed you once again. You need to study the facts. You and your elite professors ignore the fact that Erasmus never was a practicing Catholic priest. He often criticized many doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. He died in the presence of his Protestant friends. His books were eventually placed on the forbidden to read list by the RCC and most importantly no Catholic bible version ever used the Greek text of Erasmus to make up their translations, but ALL Reformation bibles did use Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza as their textual basis. The King James Bible translators did not even primarily use Erasmus but relied far more on the Greek texts of Stephanus and Beza. As usual, your argument is misinformed, deeply biased and misapplied.
The Catholic church never did approve of the Textus Receptus. In fact, the Council of Trent (1545-1564) branded Erasmus a heretic and prohibited his works. In 1559, Pope Paul IV placed Erasmus on the first class of forbidden authors, which was composed of authors whose works were completely condemned.
What is called the Textus Receptus was NOT the basis for the Catholic Bibles, but rather for the Reformation Bibles like Luther’s German Bible, the French Olivetan, the Italian Diodati, the Portuguese Almeida, the Spanish Reina Valera, the English Geneva Bible and of course the King James Holy Bible.
So, what exactly is the primary basis for such modern bibles as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Daniel Wallace’s NET versions etc? It’s the United Bible Society’s ever changing and evolving “nothing is settled or sure” Greek text based primarily on the VATICANUS manuscript found in the Vatican library, and put out by a joint effort of Evangelicals and the Catholic Church!
Furthermore, I have friend who has a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 AND the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.
If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:
"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and FOLLOWING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES IT HAS SERVED AS THE BASIS FOR NEW TRANSLATIONS AND FOR REVISIONS MADE UNDER THEIR SUPERVISION. THIS MARKS A SIGNIFICANT STEP WITH REGARD TO INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."
There it is, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not "definitive" - it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely "a stimulus to further efforts".
It doesn't matter what language is being translated, the passage CAN NOT be translated with out understanding the passage first. The peace in that verse has absolutely NO CONNECTION with the peace of ANY PERSON, saved nor unsaved.
The peace in that verse is THE GOSPEL. THE GOSPEL is given to every person on earth.
Isa 52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!
Publisheth PEACE means SPREADING THE GOOD NEWS.
Is anybody at least starting to see that it's IMPOSSIBLE to translate God's word WITHOUT GOD giving them understanding? Why do you think it's so easy for me to recognize that the KJV was inspired by God? Why is it so easy for me to see that the rest of the counterfeit translations aren't inspired by God.
If you're on the fence about which bible is right, look for the one that has the fingerprints of God all over it.
If you're on the fence about which bible is right, look for the one that has the fingerprints of God all over it.
Is anybody at least starting to see that it's IMPOSSIBLE to translate God's word WITHOUT GOD giving them understanding?
Why do you think it's so easy for me to recognize that the KJV was inspired by God? Why is it so easy for me to see that the rest of the counterfeit translations aren't inspired by God.
If you're on the fence about which bible is right, look for the one that has the fingerprints of God all over it.
Why do you think it's so easy for me to recognize that the KJV was inspired by God? Why is it so easy for me to see that the rest of the counterfeit translations aren't inspired by God.
If you're on the fence about which bible is right, look for the one that has the fingerprints of God all over it.