WHICH Bible "version" Is Authorized By God?
- Thread starter GRACE_ambassador
- 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.
That's what you think
You overlook the skill of the translators, ya think YOU know about the intricacies of the original tongues and they didn't? don't you think they knew there are 3 words for love that describe different kinds of love? that's why there are teachers in the church.
You also overlook the wonderful Holy Ghost whose word it is and who is wonderfully able to teach it to the willing student.
You overlook the skill of the translators, ya think YOU know about the intricacies of the original tongues and they didn't? don't you think they knew there are 3 words for love that describe different kinds of love? that's why there are teachers in the church.
You also overlook the wonderful Holy Ghost whose word it is and who is wonderfully able to teach it to the willing student.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Hee hee, now you are looking for a fight.
Arminus rejected the doctrine of predestination and election as the cause of man's salvation which was the prevailing reformation doctrine and he introduced the doctrine of human freewill.
Of course it is the Calvinist Arminian divide although it is possible to predestination and elect doctrines [like me] and not be a Calvinist.
This I assure you
You will understand the bible very differently according to which theology you believe.
Arminus rejected the doctrine of predestination and election as the cause of man's salvation which was the prevailing reformation doctrine and he introduced the doctrine of human freewill.
Of course it is the Calvinist Arminian divide although it is possible to predestination and elect doctrines [like me] and not be a Calvinist.
This I assure you
You will understand the bible very differently according to which theology you believe.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
You mistake my position
I think the texts used for modern translations are better than those used for the KJV but I believe the theological views of the folk that translated them greatly inferior.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" just reads differently to somebody who holds the doctrines of the reformation and to somebody who holds the modern doctrines of human freewill. Which is why some modern translators slip in little words like "whoever chooses to believe"
This word "chooses" is a commentary and a paraphrase.
I think the texts used for modern translations are better than those used for the KJV but I believe the theological views of the folk that translated them greatly inferior.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" just reads differently to somebody who holds the doctrines of the reformation and to somebody who holds the modern doctrines of human freewill. Which is why some modern translators slip in little words like "whoever chooses to believe"
This word "chooses" is a commentary and a paraphrase.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Sorry to call you childish.
I just hate the thought that some wrong teaching might be making you worry that the Bible can't be trusted just because there are variances in manuscripts. The most amazing thing about our Bible is not that there are some textual variances but that there aren't many, many more. No other ancient work has as much textual evidence. It has been preserved remarkably well for an ancient collection of books going back over 2500 years.
We don't need a cast iron guarantee that we have every word preserved in archaic English.
Christianity hasn't been stamped out in 2000 years despite relentless persecution & people are still interested in the Bible.
I just hate the thought that some wrong teaching might be making you worry that the Bible can't be trusted just because there are variances in manuscripts. The most amazing thing about our Bible is not that there are some textual variances but that there aren't many, many more. No other ancient work has as much textual evidence. It has been preserved remarkably well for an ancient collection of books going back over 2500 years.
We don't need a cast iron guarantee that we have every word preserved in archaic English.
Christianity hasn't been stamped out in 2000 years despite relentless persecution & people are still interested in the Bible.
Isaiah 34:16
Look in the scroll of the Lord and read:
None of these will be missing,
not one will lack her mate.
For it is his mouth that has given the order,
and his Spirit will gather them together.
Look in the scroll of the Lord and read:
None of these will be missing,
not one will lack her mate.
For it is his mouth that has given the order,
and his Spirit will gather them together.
-
1
- Show all
S
In many ways that is true. And we give God all the glory that we can breathe. But when it comes to determining which English translation does the best job of communication as if you had read it in the original, the answer is always "It depends on the verse in question" That's true whether someone is saved or not. It is a linguistics question. For example:
Consider also Matthew 5:2, where Jesus begins his Sermon on the Mount: “Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying” (NKJV)
“And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying” (ESV)
“and he began to teach them saying” (NIV, NCV)
“and he began to teach them” (NCV) The Greek idiom uses two phrases, to stoma (“open the mouth”) + (“teach”), to express a single action. For the Greek reader opening the mouth and teaching were not two consecutive actions, but one act of speaking (see Acts 8:35; 10:34; Rev. 13:6). The functional equivalent versions (NIV, TNIV, NCV) recognize this idiom and so accurately render the Greek, “he began to teach them.” The more literal NKJV and the ESV are understandable, but they miss the Greek idiom and so introduce an unnatural English expression.
Fee, Gordon D.; Strauss, Mark L.. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth . Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.
We don't ever say "She opened her mouth and spoke" It is a literal translation like in Spanish "what do yourself call" instead of What is your name?
Consider also Matthew 5:2, where Jesus begins his Sermon on the Mount: “Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying” (NKJV)
“And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying” (ESV)
“and he began to teach them saying” (NIV, NCV)
“and he began to teach them” (NCV) The Greek idiom uses two phrases, to stoma (“open the mouth”) + (“teach”), to express a single action. For the Greek reader opening the mouth and teaching were not two consecutive actions, but one act of speaking (see Acts 8:35; 10:34; Rev. 13:6). The functional equivalent versions (NIV, TNIV, NCV) recognize this idiom and so accurately render the Greek, “he began to teach them.” The more literal NKJV and the ESV are understandable, but they miss the Greek idiom and so introduce an unnatural English expression.
Fee, Gordon D.; Strauss, Mark L.. How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth . Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.
We don't ever say "She opened her mouth and spoke" It is a literal translation like in Spanish "what do yourself call" instead of What is your name?
-
3
-
1
- Show all
I did not intend any insult, I'm really only saying that I do trust the scholarship of the KJ translators, of course we all read which teachers and commentators which reflect our doctrinal views and above all we rely upon the good offices of the Holy Spirit.
no aggression intended.
no aggression intended.
-
2
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Good.
I have never questioned the scholarship of the KJV translators, as I have no reason to do so. However, I recognize that they were limited in the material they had available, and in the information available to them regarding the original languages. Some things they just didn't know because they had not been discovered by 1611.
As to interpretational bias, one can find evidence of it on various issues in various translations, but the KJV is not exempt from this. Calvinism is just as much a bias as anything else.
I have never questioned the scholarship of the KJV translators, as I have no reason to do so. However, I recognize that they were limited in the material they had available, and in the information available to them regarding the original languages. Some things they just didn't know because they had not been discovered by 1611.
As to interpretational bias, one can find evidence of it on various issues in various translations, but the KJV is not exempt from this. Calvinism is just as much a bias as anything else.
-
1
- Show all
For someone who is KJV-only, you have a very poor understanding of written English. Maybe you should start reading it and paying attention to the spelling, punctuation, grammar, and style instead of spending so much time posting on this thread.
At the moment, I primarily use the NASB, and that is the version to which I referred.
At the moment, I primarily use the NASB, and that is the version to which I referred.
-
1
- Show all
True, but we do have the Lord's promise that He has preserved His words for us today. Where are they? When God preserved something, it is perfect and without error. Where are His perfect, pure words for us today? I believe they are preserved in English in the KJV. Where do you believe they are?
-
1
- Show all