Omitted verses.

[John146]

Did you intend to say John 16:23-24? That is where the citation which you quote comes from. There are some conspiritorial claims that the NT was not written Greek, but in Aramaic, and so some have claimed (though it is very rare) that John 16:23-24 as found in the KJV (or even other modern Bibles) have edited out a few words or phrases. It's a very strange argument, because there's no mss evidence to base that claim off of. There isn't even a textual variant in existence to support that idea. Even the major Aramaic versions, such as the Peshitta (an Aramaic translation based from the Greek) agrees with the Greek witnesses. This idea that an original Aramaic phrase was edited out of the text stems from an interpolation that that had been added by the translator into the text. So essentially, people are arguing for Aramaic primacy based off an English interpolation. It's rather ridiculous.

In fact, there are very good internal reasons that can put this claim about Aramaic primacy to rest. On multiple occasions, Jesus’ words (which were spoken in Aramaic) had to be explained by the author of the book. For example, in Matt. 27:46, Jesus cries out (in Aramaic), “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” But then the author of Matthew has to then explain what it means.

​

Why would the author have to explain what the Aramaic phrase, “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTANI?” means if the NT was originally written in Aramaic? That would be pretty redudant. The reason the Aramaic had to be explained was because his audience and readers knew Greek; it was the language of the day, spoken over vast regions.

You have given a good example how a translation can be inspired by God.

 

[hornetguy]

I don't know why anyone would just stick with one translation. Or even argue over this.

Because there are some here that have based their whole belief in God on their false assumption that there is only ONE translation that is "true".
Instead of being a "Berean" willing to search and learn, they have placed their fingers in their ears and began reciting "there's NO translation but King Jimmy.... there's NO translation but King Jimmy..."
Even after the people that translated the King Jimmy version stated that even THEY did not consider their version to be the final and best translation, and even when scholars world wide have improved the accuracy of translations (not to mention putting them into modern, understandable language) .... Their faith is in a translation, instead of The One that the Bible is written about....

 

[John146]

Because there are some here that have based their whole belief in God on their false assumption that there is only ONE translation that is "true".
Instead of being a "Berean" willing to search and learn, they have placed their fingers in their ears and began reciting "there's NO translation but King Jimmy.... there's NO translation but King Jimmy..."
Even after the people that translated the King Jimmy version stated that even THEY did not consider their version to be the final and best translation, and even when scholars world wide have improved the accuracy of translations (not to mention putting them into modern, understandable language) .... Their faith is in a translation, instead of The One that the Bible is written about....

You cannot separate the two, the Lord and his word. No one worships the KJV. We simply believe it’s the word of God without error. There can only be one translation in English that is true from start to finish. All translation contain different words and different truths. Could a translation that contains errors, even “small” errors be the holy word of God?

A false witness cannot lie.

 

[ResidentAlien]

You cannot separate the two, the Lord and his word. No one worships the KJV. We simply believe it’s the word of God without error. There can only be one translation in English that is true from start to finish. All translation contain different words and different truths. Could a translation that contains errors, even “small” errors be the holy word of God?

A false witness cannot lie.

Tyndale famously said: "I defy the Pope and all his laws, if God spare my life, I will make a boy that driveth the plough know more of the Scripture than thou dost."

I wonder how Tyndale would feel about some of the phraseology in the KJV. Can today's "ploughboy" understand?

"O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged."

This is but one example; there are many more.

 

[Underwhosewings]

You cannot separate the two, the Lord and his word. No one worships the KJV. We simply believe it’s the word of God without error. There can only be one translation in English that is true from start to finish. All translation contain different words and different truths. Could a translation that contains errors, even “small” errors be the holy word of God?

A false witness cannot lie.

Yes, and assuming the persons are born again, then these verses would apply to them. ….
John 16:12-13 KJV
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
[13] Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
John 14:26 KJV
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

 

[John146]

Yes, and assuming the persons are born again, then these verses would apply to them. ….
John 16:12-13 KJV
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
[13] Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
John 14:26 KJV
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

And in order to understand all truth, one needs the Holy Spirit and the correct words.

 

[hornetguy]

There can only be one translation in English that is true from start to finish.

That is completely false, and therein lies the problem. You think the KJV is absolutely 100% error free, and that is demonstrably wrong.
Even the translators of the KJV didn't think that way. You have raised that translation to "idol" status.
But we've been down this road before, a few years back.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

Did you intend to say John 16:23-24? That is where the citation which you quote comes from. There are some conspiritorial claims that the NT was not written Greek, but in Aramaic, and so some have claimed (though it is very rare) that John 16:23-24 as found in the KJV (or even other modern Bibles) have edited out a few words or phrases. It's a very strange argument, because there's no mss evidence to base that claim off of. There isn't even a textual variant in existence to support that idea. Even the major Aramaic versions, such as the Peshitta (an Aramaic translation based from the Greek) agrees with the Greek witnesses. This idea that an original Aramaic phrase was edited out of the text stems from an interpolation that that had been added by the translator into the text. So essentially, people are arguing for Aramaic primacy based off an English interpolation. It's rather ridiculous.

In fact, there are very good internal reasons that can put this claim about Aramaic primacy to rest. On multiple occasions, Jesus’ words (which were spoken in Aramaic) had to be explained by the author of the book. For example, in Matt. 27:46, Jesus cries out (in Aramaic), “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” But then the author of Matthew has to then explain what it means.

​

Why would the author have to explain what the Aramaic phrase, “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTANI?” means if the NT was originally written in Aramaic? That would be pretty redudant. The reason the Aramaic had to be explained was because his audience and readers knew Greek; it was the language of the day, spoken over vast regions.

You have given a good example how a translation can be inspired by God.

Thanks, I have often wondered IF ALL Scripture is Not "Inspired Of God"
Then how can Any of It "Be Profitable" (2 Timothy 3:16 KJV)?

 

[hornetguy]

And in order to understand all truth, one needs the Holy Spirit and the correct words.

Actually, if you believe what God tells us, we really don't need the "correct words". If we have a thirst for truth, the Spirit will give us that truth. The desire for that truth could come from reading a line or two from a tract from the JW's Watchtower.... if we seek the truth, the Spirit will give it to us.
We can find God's word in nearly all the translations, more so in the modern ones, as has been discussed pretty thoroughly in this thread...

 

[cv5]

You cannot separate the two, the Lord and his word. No one worships the KJV. We simply believe it’s the word of God without error. There can only be one translation in English that is true from start to finish. All translation contain different words and different truths. Could a translation that contains errors, even “small” errors be the holy word of God?

A false witness cannot lie.

What then do you say to those who read a Bible translated into Farsi or Tagalog or Bantu?

You are not making a lot of sense to be very honest.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

What then do you say to those who read a Bible translated into Farsi or Tagalog or Bantu?

The KJV (English) and all (other languages) translations "from" the underlying (NON-corrupt) manuscripts?

 

[Dino246]

There can only be one translation in English that is true from start to finish.

That simply is not true. In many cases a given word in one language has more than one valid translations in another language. Further, the structural difference between languages leads to ambiguity regarding the ’correct’ rendering in the target language. If you had learned a second language, you might understand these things instead of presenting your unlearned opinions as though they are objective facts.

A false witness cannot lie.

You really should proofread your posts.

 

[Dino246]

You have given a good example how a translation can be inspired by God.

You keep arguing for possibility instead of examining and accepting reality.

 

[cv5]

Because there are some here that have based their whole belief in God on their false assumption that there is only ONE translation that is "true".
Instead of being a "Berean" willing to search and learn, they have placed their fingers in their ears and began reciting "there's NO translation but King Jimmy.... there's NO translation but King Jimmy..."
Even after the people that translated the King Jimmy version stated that even THEY did not consider their version to be the final and best translation, and even when scholars world wide have improved the accuracy of translations (not to mention putting them into modern, understandable language) .... Their faith is in a translation, instead of The One that the Bible is written about....

The Scriptures are purposefully written as ordered code. With redundancy and robust anti-tampering features.
There is a signal being communicated and a certain amount of bandwidth. The embedded message can tolerate a certain amount of "noise" before it becomes unintelligible, uncertain and garbled.

We endeavor to achieve the highest signal-to-noise ratio as possible. Thus the prodigious efforts by scholars to produce the most accurate rendition. But signal loss is both anticipated and resolved more than satisfactorily by the Engineer who wrote the code to begin with......

The Jew's catechism is his calendar speaks to the codified nature of the appointed times, the holy days called HaMoyadim, all of which are MACROCODES, prophetic and intensely information dense.

This miraculous text we call the Bible declares over and over again that it is the one and only Word of God to mankind. A fact no one can or will be able to deny.

 

[John146]

That is completely false, and therein lies the problem. You think the KJV is absolutely 100% error free, and that is demonstrably wrong.
Even the translators of the KJV didn't think that way. You have raised that translation to "idol" status.
But we've been down this road before, a few years back.

Viewing the KJV as the word of God is idol status? How can two translations that contain totally different words with different meanings and contain contradictory truths, both be the word of God? Therein lies the problem. Btw, God himself states that his word is to be exalted above his name.

 

[John146]

What then do you say to those who read a Bible translated into Farsi or Tagalog or Bantu?

You are not making a lot of sense to be very honest.

I am talking about English. Btw, God never promised to preserve his words in every language. For thousands of years God's word was only in Hebrew. What did the people do who spoke other languages?

 

[John146]

That simply is not true. In many cases a given word in one language has more than one valid translations in another language. Further, the structural difference between languages leads to ambiguity regarding the ’correct’ rendering in the target language. If you had learned a second language, you might understand these things instead of presenting your unlearned opinions as though they are objective facts.


You really should proofread your posts.

Thanks for your opinion. We are in the search for truth. God's word never contradicts. When one translation contradicts another, they both cannot be the word of God. Surely you can understand this, yes?

 

[John146]

You keep arguing for possibility instead of examining and accepting reality.

Does your reality state that God has not preserved his word, every word of truth, for us today? In one completed book?

 

[cv5]

I am talking about English. Btw, God never promised to preserve his words in every language. For thousands of years God's word was only in Hebrew. What did the people do who spoke other languages?

So now you say that we are constraint to BOTH English only and NJV only?

 

[cv5]

Thanks for your opinion. We are in the search for truth. God's word never contradicts. When one translation contradicts another, they both cannot be the word of God. Surely you can understand this, yes?

Or could we say that either has mostly pristine signal but each with a few discrete errors. These errors can for the most part be detected by overlaying and checking with other copies of the code.