Favourite Bible Translations

[Scribe]

Lol, it means that I have half a brain.

That explains a lot.

 

[up]

Consider this, while the books help increase us in faith and knowledge faster, the substance of the truth about God is hidden in our hearts, and this knowledge is a priori.
When you read "murderer knows no God and is a liar", or "God is not a respecter of persons" or "His mercy endures forever", you don't need to go and check it or prove it, you already know it's true because it can't be different. It's already in you - the Spirit is just nodding, confirming/testifying of the truth as you read... for some questions it's more complicated but with some contemplation, even without reading the Bible, if you're honest you can get to the correct conclusion as to what is right.
A simple conclusion from all this: do these cultists actually have intent to pursue and promulgate what's true?

more womanly wisdom, plesse and I'm pretty sure she can say in a few different languages

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Because they contradict almost ten thousand times?

Rubbish. You are deliberately studying divisive extra-biblical doctrine if you draw that conclusion.
Anyone with a KJV/modern parallel can see that they nearly always agree.
What you are doing is agreeing with non-believers who say the bible is corrupt & unreliable.

You have proved several times in the past that you lack understanding of the King James English. You can be easily deceived and manipulated because of that. And you are deceived.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

A piece of history that led the greatest revival the world has ever seen! What’s the fruit of the new versions...the Laodicean Church Age.

That generation is dead now. We've moved on. There are far more people on the planet today.
We will continue to use bibles in English that is correct for this day.

This isn't a competition. KJV Only cultists insist on setting a limit on the word of God. It's bondage.
Others are happy with the blessing of several versions which God has given us including the KJV.

It is ok to prefer the KJV and say so. It's ok to stick to it.
It is not ok to to keep vilifying the bible in plain English and try to lead others into bondage with you.

 

[John146]

Rubbish. You are deliberately studying divisive extra-biblical doctrine if you draw that conclusion.
Anyone with a KJV/modern parallel can see that they nearly always agree.
What you are doing is agreeing with non-believers who say the bible is corrupt & unreliable.

You have proved several times in the past that you lack understanding of the King James English. You can be easily deceived and manipulated because of that. And you are deceived.

Thanks for your opinions...

 

[fredoheaven]

Wrong! "Study" in the 16th century meant "to show". It doesn't mean "to observe or read" as in modern English.

Below are some 16th Century Dictionary which occurs the word “study”. Consider the following.
An Alveary or Triple Dictionary, in English, Latin, and French
John Baret (1574)

import_contacts ¶ to Muze or study on a thing, to recorde in ones minde.... Cic. * A sad muzing. Meditatio, ônis, f.g. Cicer. Grand pensement. * Muzing: in a study Cogitabundus, da, dum. To muze vpon heauenly thinges. Cælestia contemplari. Cicer. A minde alway ...

Dictionarium Linguae Latinae et Anglicanae
Thomas Thomas (1587)

Opĕra, æ, f.g. p.b.Labour, trauaile, worke, paine, diligence, indeauour, study, helpe, means, aide, workmanship. Operæ est, Plaut. It is needfull, men must.

import_contacts Stŭdium, ij, n.g.An earnest bending of the midn to any thing, great affection that one hath to do good or ill: study also exercise, feat, trade, endeauour, will or appetite, fantasie, desire, care, diligence, labour, ...


Bibliotheca Scholastica
John Rider (1589)

import_contacts To Studie, or applie the minde.1 Studeo, 2 attendo. To studie of, or cast his minde diligentlie. 1 Meditor, 2 ruminor, evolvo. To studie, or take great paines in a thing. 2 Evigilo. To giue too much studie to a thing. 2 Indormio....

 

[KJV1611]

Below are some 16th Century Dictionary which occurs the word “study”. Consider the following.
An Alveary or Triple Dictionary, in English, Latin, and French
John Baret (1574)

import_contacts ¶ to Muze or study on a thing, to recorde in ones minde.... Cic. * A sad muzing. Meditatio, ônis, f.g. Cicer. Grand pensement. * Muzing: in a study Cogitabundus, da, dum. To muze vpon heauenly thinges. Cælestia contemplari. Cicer. A minde alway ...

Dictionarium Linguae Latinae et Anglicanae
Thomas Thomas (1587)

Opĕra, æ, f.g. p.b.Labour, trauaile, worke, paine, diligence, indeauour, study, helpe, means, aide, workmanship. Operæ est, Plaut. It is needfull, men must.

import_contacts Stŭdium, ij, n.g.An earnest bending of the midn to any thing, great affection that one hath to do good or ill: study also exercise, feat, trade, endeauour, will or appetite, fantasie, desire, care, diligence, labour, ...


Bibliotheca Scholastica
John Rider (1589)

import_contacts To Studie, or applie the minde.1 Studeo, 2 attendo. To studie of, or cast his minde diligentlie. 1 Meditor, 2 ruminor, evolvo. To studie, or take great paines in a thing. 2 Evigilo. To giue too much studie to a thing. 2 Indormio....

I didn’t want to waste my time on researching that so thank you for doing so.

 

[fredoheaven]

Here someone had define the Greek spoudazo with Mr. Strong but not altogether given the meaning as “study” as Mr. Strong did. This is also to noted that KJV translators were not ignorant about the Greek ‘spoudazo’ even translated it as “endeavor” 3x, do diligence (2x), be diligent (2x), give diligence (1x), be forward (1x), labour (1x), study (1x). Since the Greek has also the meaning of study, it will be the context that determine the correct word to be used. KJV had it a correct one.

 

[KJV1611]

Here someone had define the Greek spoudazo with Mr. Strong but not altogether given the meaning as “study” as Mr. Strong did. This is also to noted that KJV translators were not ignorant about the Greek ‘spoudazo’ even translated it as “endeavor” 3x, do diligence (2x), be diligent (2x), give diligence (1x), be forward (1x), labour (1x), study (1x). Since the Greek has also the meaning of study, it will be the context that determine the correct word to be used. KJV had it a correct one.

That means that a translator MUST INTERPRET scripture in order to translate, which means that any uninspired translation is limited to the translators understanding of God’s divine nature.

That’s thousands of scriptures that have to be fully, 100% understood by the translator in order to properly translate.

 

[fredoheaven]

That means that a translator MUST INTERPRET scripture in order to translate, which means that any uninspired translation is limited to the translators understanding of God’s divine nature.

That’s thousands of scriptures that have to be fully, 100% understood by the translator in order to properly translate.

Actually “interpret” means translate. The idea of “comparing scripture with scripture”’ “context” is the view of many earlier translators, like Wycliffe, Tyndale, the KJV translators etc. The God guided translators of the KJV are exact grammarians unlike many of today’s translators who are very dependent on Wescott and Hort, Strong, Thayer and many others who wanted to exterminate the pure, holy, set apart word of God in English-AV/KJV.

 

[fredoheaven]

That generation is dead now. We've moved on. There are far more people on the planet today.
We will continue to use bibles in English that is correct for this day.

This isn't a competition. KJV Only cultists insist on setting a limit on the word of God. It's bondage.
Others are happy with the blessing of several versions which God has given us including the KJV.

It is ok to prefer the KJV and say so. It's ok to stick to it.
It is not ok to to keep vilifying the bible in plain English and try to lead others into bondage with you.

If you ever know history, then it's not really 'KJVO' that inflames the issue of bible versions. The revisionist of 1881 have a low view of the bible KJV and called KJV "perverse and corrupt", TR being "vile and villainous and reject the infallibility of the scripture." i guessed you should know about that.

 

[Kavik]

Why were the people so amazed to hear them speaking in other languages?

I was going to what would have been a somewhat long response, but rather than that, have a listen to:

 

[KJV1611]

I was going to what would have been a somewhat long response, but rather than that, have a listen to:

Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

What language did the Egyptians speak?

 

[Scribe]

Rubbish. You are deliberately studying divisive extra-biblical doctrine if you draw that conclusion.
Anyone with a KJV/modern parallel can see that they nearly always agree.
What you are doing is agreeing with non-believers who say the bible is corrupt & unreliable.

You have proved several times in the past that you lack understanding of the King James English. You can be easily deceived and manipulated because of that. And you are deceived.

I would not even call it deceived, it is more like a belligerent adherence to ignorance due to laziness.

KJV only fervency is a reaction, like a protest that is a pathetic whine, stating "why can't we have an English translation that is exactly what was written by the authors of the bible, word for word?"

And the answer is, "because they did not write in English"

and the belligerence is "I don't care I believe they did" and then putting fingers in the ears and singing loudly to not hear any thing contrary to their desire to 'wish it into existance'.

That is not deceit that is just laziness. "I don't want to examine the original languages, that takes too much time. God should have done it my way and not required people to study" That is not deceit that is willful belligerent immaturity and refusal to grow up.

 

[KJV1611]

I would not even call it deceived, it is more like a belligerent adherence to ignorance due to laziness.

KJV only fervency is a reaction, like a protest that is a pathetic whine, stating "why can't we have an English translation that is exactly what was written by the authors of the bible, word for word?"

And the answer is, "because they did not write in English"

and the belligerence is "I don't care I believe they did" and then putting fingers in the ears and singing loudly to not hear any thing contrary to their desire to 'wish it into existance'.

That is not deceit that is just laziness. "I don't want to examine the original languages, that takes too much time. God should have done it my way and not required people to study" That is not deceit that is willful belligerent immaturity and refusal to grow up.

The originals DO NOT EXIST. Copies can't be confirmed true because there is NO ORIGINAL to compare them to.

Is that really so hard to understand? There is only one method of authenticity left and it has nothing to do with original languages.

The only way I can see you're point of view is if you were to say the copies were inspired also.

 

[KJV1611]

That line of argument would thrown out of a court of law in a heartbeat even in this unjust justice system. Image what's gonna happen when the righteous Judge in heaven is presented with this case.

 

[KJV1611]

I don't know if everybody know this or not but those of us who are explaining what scripture means to other people, we are the masters. That includes myself and everyone else who expounds on the word of God. God will judge teachers of the Word according to the kind of impact they had on those they aspired to lead.

Jas 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

 

[Scribe]

The originals DO NOT EXIST. Copies can't be confirmed true because there is NO ORIGINAL to compare them to.

Is that really so hard to understand? There is only one method of authenticity left and it has nothing to do with original languages.

The only way I can see you're point of view is if you were to say the copies were inspired also.

If they are an accurate copy then yes, they are. We have so many that the majority of the text is not in question. Where there are differences it does not enough to doubt the accuracy of the majority. Where there are differences many can be resolved by analysis.

What is certain is that you can trust them more than English translations that used them can't you? Trusting an English translation to be more inspired than the source they were using to translate is an invented religious fanaticism toward one English translation and assigning to the translation an miraculous appropriation of the inspiration from the original authors to the KJV translators. This is fanaticism, idolatrous, and illogical.
But fanaticism like that can't be reasoned with, so I am done.

 

[John146]

Trusting an English translation to be more inspired than the source they were using to translate is an invented religious fanaticism toward one English translation and assigning to the translation an miraculous appropriation of the inspiration from the original authors to the KJV translators. This is fanaticism, idolatrous, and illogical.

It's actually biblical. There are examples all throughout Scripture itself where the translation is better than the original. Translations can be inspired by God.

 

[KJV1611]

If they are an accurate copy then yes, they are. We have so many that the majority of the text is not in question. Where there are differences it does not enough to doubt the accuracy of the majority. Where there are differences many can be resolved by analysis.

What is certain is that you can trust them more than English translations that used them can't you? Trusting an English translation to be more inspired than the source they were using to translate is an invented religious fanaticism toward one English translation and assigning to the translation an miraculous appropriation of the inspiration from the original authors to the KJV translators. This is fanaticism, idolatrous, and illogical.
But fanaticism like that can't be reasoned with, so I am done.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you say that you weren't aware that there is more than one line of manuscripts.