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.
Word for word translations use the words written, dynamic thought involves the translator second guessing what may have been in the mind of the author when using those words.
I'll say this again [with patience and forebearance] if you believe salvation is a top to bottom work of God your understanding of scriptures will be very different from someone who believes that salvation is a co-operation between man and God.
Reformation doctrine was salvation by grace through faith [not our own] and this was the mind set of Tynedale and those who translated the KJ. Some time after the reformation the doctrine of human freewill was introduced to the reformed churches, which is actually a heark back to Roman Catholic theology. This doctrine is now the overwhelmingly predominant belief of modern theologians.
It colours the way folks read the scriptures.
I'll say this again [with patience and forebearance] if you believe salvation is a top to bottom work of God your understanding of scriptures will be very different from someone who believes that salvation is a co-operation between man and God.
Reformation doctrine was salvation by grace through faith [not our own] and this was the mind set of Tynedale and those who translated the KJ. Some time after the reformation the doctrine of human freewill was introduced to the reformed churches, which is actually a heark back to Roman Catholic theology. This doctrine is now the overwhelmingly predominant belief of modern theologians.
It colours the way folks read the scriptures.
a translation is not the same thing as a transliteration.
English has a different syntax and language 'rules' from hebrew or greek, its not the easiest language to learn, but the advantage it has over a lot of other langauages is that it is phonetic to some extent so its easy to read. There are 26 letters in the english alphabet and there are only a certain number of sounds,
english doesnt have particular tones like say chinese does and it doesnt have pictograms, although emojis are somewhat changing this.
Thank goodness we have arabic numerals though because roman numerals can be way too confusing for a lot of people. anyone try and reference chapter L verse XXIV for example.
English has a different syntax and language 'rules' from hebrew or greek, its not the easiest language to learn, but the advantage it has over a lot of other langauages is that it is phonetic to some extent so its easy to read. There are 26 letters in the english alphabet and there are only a certain number of sounds,
english doesnt have particular tones like say chinese does and it doesnt have pictograms, although emojis are somewhat changing this.
Thank goodness we have arabic numerals though because roman numerals can be way too confusing for a lot of people. anyone try and reference chapter L verse XXIV for example.
-
1
- Show all
if english was truly phonetic (or phonemic) though it would be much easier. Espeically when writing it! The good thing about english is it tends to absorb words of other langauges and new words get made all the time.
eg at the time, to baptize, was not even a word in the english langauge, its basically just a transliteration of the greek. It has now had that meaning, to dip, become the new meaning it has in scripture, so you may have the translators to thank for talking about what it means to be baptised instead of us saying I dip you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
lol. we call John the baptist. and there are baptist churches not dipping churches.
eg at the time, to baptize, was not even a word in the english langauge, its basically just a transliteration of the greek. It has now had that meaning, to dip, become the new meaning it has in scripture, so you may have the translators to thank for talking about what it means to be baptised instead of us saying I dip you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
lol. we call John the baptist. and there are baptist churches not dipping churches.
-
1
- Show all
I am not sure what your point is here.
The Ten Commandments were replaced by the original author - God. Jeremiah replaced his own work.
Do you believe copies are inspired? If yes... then you believe each person, whoever copied a text of Scripture, was totally inerrant. Comparing copies side by side has proven this is not the case. These copies have been amazingly kept in the providence of God but they were not inspired.
The Ten Commandments were replaced by the original author - God. Jeremiah replaced his own work.
Do you believe copies are inspired? If yes... then you believe each person, whoever copied a text of Scripture, was totally inerrant. Comparing copies side by side has proven this is not the case. These copies have been amazingly kept in the providence of God but they were not inspired.
-
3
-
1
- Show all
Not one single original autograph of the New Testament exists today. All we have are copies.
When comparing copies - which is called variant reading - decisions have to be made, by men, on which verses are legitimate and which are not. This is primarily done on the basis of majority rule. That is to say, if the majority of the copies contain a particular sentence (verse) it is considered legitimate. If only a few copies contain this sentence, it is usually rejected. However, if the sentence is found again and again in older copies, though they maybe in the minority, the sentence maybe deemed legitimate. The process is more complicated than this but you get the idea.
There are over 5,800 complete copies are fragments of the New Testament, in the Greek language, in existence today. Comparing each sentence across all of the source material is a huge task.
The KJV, is a translation that comes from the source material called "The Textus Receptus" or "Received Text". In 1611, the amount of copies available were limited compared to the number that has been found more recently. Many of these more recent finds are much older copies than those in the Textus Receptus. Therefore, a few of the sentences included in the KJV have been dropped because the older copies did not include those sentences.
Many of the translations we have today - such as - the New American Standard Bible, the Revised Standard Version and the New International Version and many others, are based upon the variant readings of these older copies and extensive comparisons which culminated into what is called, "The Nestle Greek Text" This text is considered to be far more accurate than the "Received Text" because of the use of the far older copies.
It is possible to purchase Biblical works on variant readings, then you can check it out for yourself. The RSV Bible often times includes footnotes on controversial verses.
The bottom line is --- none of these variant readings, errors in the copies, do any real harm to the message of God for His people. The Word of God has been remarkably preserved throughout the centuries.
When comparing copies - which is called variant reading - decisions have to be made, by men, on which verses are legitimate and which are not. This is primarily done on the basis of majority rule. That is to say, if the majority of the copies contain a particular sentence (verse) it is considered legitimate. If only a few copies contain this sentence, it is usually rejected. However, if the sentence is found again and again in older copies, though they maybe in the minority, the sentence maybe deemed legitimate. The process is more complicated than this but you get the idea.
There are over 5,800 complete copies are fragments of the New Testament, in the Greek language, in existence today. Comparing each sentence across all of the source material is a huge task.
The KJV, is a translation that comes from the source material called "The Textus Receptus" or "Received Text". In 1611, the amount of copies available were limited compared to the number that has been found more recently. Many of these more recent finds are much older copies than those in the Textus Receptus. Therefore, a few of the sentences included in the KJV have been dropped because the older copies did not include those sentences.
Many of the translations we have today - such as - the New American Standard Bible, the Revised Standard Version and the New International Version and many others, are based upon the variant readings of these older copies and extensive comparisons which culminated into what is called, "The Nestle Greek Text" This text is considered to be far more accurate than the "Received Text" because of the use of the far older copies.
It is possible to purchase Biblical works on variant readings, then you can check it out for yourself. The RSV Bible often times includes footnotes on controversial verses.
The bottom line is --- none of these variant readings, errors in the copies, do any real harm to the message of God for His people. The Word of God has been remarkably preserved throughout the centuries.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Try finding Matthew 17:21, 18:11, Romans 16:24, Acts 8:37 in the NIV, they are removed, why?
Because the new translations are backed by the corrupt 1% minority of manuscript evidence in the (Alexandrian Text Type)
The KJV is supported by the (Textus Receptus)
NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, On and On used the Nestle/Aland (Novum Testamentum Graece) Greek Text, created by Adulterers Kurt Aland And His College Student That he married after divorcing his wife (Barbara Nee Ehlers), dont forget Roman Catholic Jesuit Cardinal, homosexual union supporter (Carlo Maria Martini)
The New Versions Are A Work Of Adulterous Corruption, Kept Silent.
Because the new translations are backed by the corrupt 1% minority of manuscript evidence in the (Alexandrian Text Type)
The KJV is supported by the (Textus Receptus)
NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, On and On used the Nestle/Aland (Novum Testamentum Graece) Greek Text, created by Adulterers Kurt Aland And His College Student That he married after divorcing his wife (Barbara Nee Ehlers), dont forget Roman Catholic Jesuit Cardinal, homosexual union supporter (Carlo Maria Martini)
The New Versions Are A Work Of Adulterous Corruption, Kept Silent.
-
1
- Show all
Not to belabor the point but I would have to disagree.
I would love to have access to the originals. Having that access would allow one to get even closer to the Truth. How grand it would be if we had access to the original Ten Commandments, Aaron's rod or the Ark of the Covenant. But this was not in God's plan. The originals are far more important than any copy but perhaps God did not want the originals to survive (are at least be known today) because it is a matter of faith.
I would love to have access to the originals. Having that access would allow one to get even closer to the Truth. How grand it would be if we had access to the original Ten Commandments, Aaron's rod or the Ark of the Covenant. But this was not in God's plan. The originals are far more important than any copy but perhaps God did not want the originals to survive (are at least be known today) because it is a matter of faith.
-
2
- Show all
God promised divine preservation, and it's not in the Greek text (Novum Testamentum Graece) created by Adulterers Kurt and Barbara Aland, and homosexual union supporter, roman catholic Jesuit (Carlo Maria Martini) that supports modern translations, NIV, NASB, ESV, Etc
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.
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.
-
1
- Show all
I haven't read all of your posts but you strike me as a KJV worshipper. Very dangerous to set any translation up to be worshiped. I have been translating the Greek New Testament for decades and believe you me the KJV is a good translation but not worthy of worship.
The KJV does a TERRIBLE job of handling the "Perfect" tense verbs of the Greek. I do mean TERRIBLE.
And what is with the word "Easter" being translated for the Greek word "pascha" in Acts 12:4? The Greek word "pascha" is always translated "Passover" throughout Scripture.
The KJV does a TERRIBLE job of handling the "Perfect" tense verbs of the Greek. I do mean TERRIBLE.
And what is with the word "Easter" being translated for the Greek word "pascha" in Acts 12:4? The Greek word "pascha" is always translated "Passover" throughout Scripture.
-
3
- Show all
King James Bible Translators
The Adulterers Kurt and Barbara Aland, and Homosexual Union Supporter (Carlo Maria Martini) who created the (Novum Testamentum Graece) That's Supports Modern Translations NIV, NASB, ESV, Etc
They Don't Amount To A Speck Of Sand On The Beach, As Compared To The Confessing "Christian Scholars" On The King James Translation, As Shown In The Link Above
The Adulterers Kurt and Barbara Aland, and Homosexual Union Supporter (Carlo Maria Martini) who created the (Novum Testamentum Graece) That's Supports Modern Translations NIV, NASB, ESV, Etc
They Don't Amount To A Speck Of Sand On The Beach, As Compared To The Confessing "Christian Scholars" On The King James Translation, As Shown In The Link Above
-
2
- Show all
I am glad they changed that. I do not know much about how the different national conferences of the A/G work. I don't think the former statement you talked about would have been accepted in the A/G, but I am a few decades removed from knowing _that_ much about them. I did visit Sunday nights a few years back at one church and they had a class promoting pre-wrath rapture. The A/G allows a fair amount of autonomy in local churches compared to some denominations.
If we believe the Bible is true, and three of those four scenarios you have in mind do not happen, then how can we say we believe they are 'Biblical'?
I believe there was something in the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy that the mark of true intelligence was being able to believe in two mutually contradictory ideas, but I do not buy that.
I would not call that Word of Faith. The idea that healing is absolutely guaranteed as a part of our covenant with God if we have enough faith is an idea that goes back to the Faith Cure Movement in the 1800's. There were people in the Holiness Movement and Pentecostal Movement early on that believed that way. But my impression is that all Holiness or Pentecostal people saw it that way.
WOF theology drew from that stream of Pentecostal teaching, but also added to it Kenyon's perspective. In addition, it is very light on the idea of God being sovereign-- Hagin was at least-- not giving responsibility for the calamities he takes responsibility for in scripture, and having a really big role for the Devil in that sort of thing. There is an emphasis on positive confession and faith being a set of spiritual rules. There are also all those other miscellaneous teachings like the idea of Jesus dying spiritually, not saying, 'thy will be done' that idea that 'prophesying' is making a faith declaration. Then there is the emphasis on prosperity and money.
FF Bosworth wrote 'Christ the Healer.' He was CMA and was a part of the Pentecostal movement and the early Assemblies of God. But the A/G developed a doctrinal statement in response to the Oneness movement and developed a very rigid position on the 'initial evidence doctrine' in regard to speaking in tongues. He went back to the CMA. I have not read the whole book, but the idea that there are promises of God for healing that can be received through faith was a belief before the WOF movement.
If we believe the Bible is true, and three of those four scenarios you have in mind do not happen, then how can we say we believe they are 'Biblical'?
I believe there was something in the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy that the mark of true intelligence was being able to believe in two mutually contradictory ideas, but I do not buy that.
I would not call that Word of Faith. The idea that healing is absolutely guaranteed as a part of our covenant with God if we have enough faith is an idea that goes back to the Faith Cure Movement in the 1800's. There were people in the Holiness Movement and Pentecostal Movement early on that believed that way. But my impression is that all Holiness or Pentecostal people saw it that way.
WOF theology drew from that stream of Pentecostal teaching, but also added to it Kenyon's perspective. In addition, it is very light on the idea of God being sovereign-- Hagin was at least-- not giving responsibility for the calamities he takes responsibility for in scripture, and having a really big role for the Devil in that sort of thing. There is an emphasis on positive confession and faith being a set of spiritual rules. There are also all those other miscellaneous teachings like the idea of Jesus dying spiritually, not saying, 'thy will be done' that idea that 'prophesying' is making a faith declaration. Then there is the emphasis on prosperity and money.
FF Bosworth wrote 'Christ the Healer.' He was CMA and was a part of the Pentecostal movement and the early Assemblies of God. But the A/G developed a doctrinal statement in response to the Oneness movement and developed a very rigid position on the 'initial evidence doctrine' in regard to speaking in tongues. He went back to the CMA. I have not read the whole book, but the idea that there are promises of God for healing that can be received through faith was a belief before the WOF movement.
-
1
- Show all