Originals - gone.
Copies - mixture of truth and error. Can't be verified which is which.
"Original language" = Gold standards. ROFL
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.
Copies - mixture of truth and error. Can't be verified which is which.
"Original language" = Gold standards. ROFL
S
Scribe
Guest
He thought it wasn't good for us to be of the same language so he did this https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 11:7-9&version=KJV When Job, Genesis ect. was written they wrote in proto-Sanaitic script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script but its pretty much not written or spoken anymore https://net.lib.byu.edu/imaging/negev/mainfs.html but here in verse 3:9 he says he will return us to a pure language and then the translations will all agree https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zephaniah 3&version=KJV
Because it reflects the spirit of Christ. No errors, no contradictions, a consistent message through and through. Word and number patterns that could never happen by chance.
Gods word beliw claims preservation, where is this to be found today?
Psalm 12:6-7KJV
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
S
Scribe
Guest
Back when? Pick a year since 1611 and there were scholars who could read the new testament in Greek and did so. There were self educated people who could do so. There have always been educated people who understood that KJV was an English translation and not the inspired writings of Paul. Most people know Paul did not write his letters in KJV English. Who are these imbeciles that you speak of who "back then" thought that Paul spoke and wrote in English? The only people "back then" who thought that Jesus spoke in KJV English were ignorant people. Extremely ignorant people.
S
Scribe
Guest
So you have theories about the number of English words and letter patterns that makes you believe it was divinely inspired? So God loves English speaking people more than the Chinese? Can't the Chinese have a perfect translation too?
S
Scribe
Guest
The word and number patterns are just gravy on the top, sort of like God's signature. Inerrancy is the biggest factor.
I can't speak for other languages because I don't know other languages but I would assume God did the same for all languages... he did in the book of Acts.
It appears you are unfamiliar with the translation of the KJV, perhaps you need to acquaint yourself with the translators, and the process?
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
Perhaps it is a masterpiece. It was good for it's time and it has it's place.
But it is wrong on many levels to purposely confine the word of God only to an archaic form of English.
It would have been a lazy church that left the bible untranslated into the most widely spoken language in the world today.
Is there an agreement between UBS and the Vatican? Whether this be "later on" the two text was shared and was adopted by Bible Societies and so Yes there is an Actual Agreement.
“Ok, explain how "original languages" prove an error in any bible."
I'll give a few quick examples -
"If you have HEARING, these verses are telling us EXACTLY how God preserved his word from the day of Pentecost forward. The wonderful works of God is the bible.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”
This passage you quote is a perfect example – in “as the Spirit gave them utterance”, what is typically translated as the phrase “to give utterance”, in Greek is the word “apophtheggomai” – “to give utterance” is actually not the most correct translation.
The word means "to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to”. It refers not to the content of the speech (i.e., the language), but rather to the manner of speaking. In each instance where this word occurs in scripture, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired and it is always, by the way, in the speaker’s native language.
I won’t go into details as it’s too off-topic, but suffice to say that the Holy Spirit did not give the language of what was said, but rather the manner in which it was said (i.e. bold, authoritative and inspired).
Another minor translation error is “unicorn” – People often joke that the KJV has a lot of unicorns in it. The word should have been more properly translated as rhinoceros, wild ox, oryx, or aurochs.
I’ve already addressed the political inclusion of “witch” in Exodus as opposed to “poisoner”.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to call them purposeful errors (well, except for the last one), but they are incorrect translations of what we would term an original language text.
These have been copied over to subsequent English versions and are no longer exclusive to the KJV.
I'll give a few quick examples -
"If you have HEARING, these verses are telling us EXACTLY how God preserved his word from the day of Pentecost forward. The wonderful works of God is the bible.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”
This passage you quote is a perfect example – in “as the Spirit gave them utterance”, what is typically translated as the phrase “to give utterance”, in Greek is the word “apophtheggomai” – “to give utterance” is actually not the most correct translation.
The word means "to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to”. It refers not to the content of the speech (i.e., the language), but rather to the manner of speaking. In each instance where this word occurs in scripture, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired and it is always, by the way, in the speaker’s native language.
I won’t go into details as it’s too off-topic, but suffice to say that the Holy Spirit did not give the language of what was said, but rather the manner in which it was said (i.e. bold, authoritative and inspired).
Another minor translation error is “unicorn” – People often joke that the KJV has a lot of unicorns in it. The word should have been more properly translated as rhinoceros, wild ox, oryx, or aurochs.
I’ve already addressed the political inclusion of “witch” in Exodus as opposed to “poisoner”.
I don't know if I'd go so far as to call them purposeful errors (well, except for the last one), but they are incorrect translations of what we would term an original language text.
These have been copied over to subsequent English versions and are no longer exclusive to the KJV.
The NIV, ESV dosent preserve the verses below in Gods word, they are preserved in the KJV
It's not a matter of let's hold hands and skip down the yellow brick road to the Kingdom of OZ
One translation is preservation, the other isnt
You cant have a Dollar bill without serial numbers, it's a (Counterfeit) of the true currency?
Below, Verses Missing In The Greek, Alexandian Text Type?
Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Acts 8:37
Roman's 16:24
I fully understand my english KJV that is supported by the Greek Byzantine Textual Family, including the text the church received and used (Textus Receptus)
I dont use the new translations, supported by the 1%< minority of manuscript evidence, in the Alexandrian Text Type
It's that simple, its not archaic words as you claim, its a completely foreign Greek Text, that the Church has never used or received.
Its that simple Byzantine v Alexandrian
I don't know if it was the Septuagint or not, I don't think the bible says. But this is what I'm talking about.
Luk 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.