Are the Earliest Manuscripts the Best?

In fact, I bought a parallel KJV vs. NLT Bible because the Old Testament is not always so easy to read in the KJV. Yes, I realize the NLT changes stuff for the worse and not for the better on a lot of passages. But that still does not mean I don't make the KJV my final word of authority, though.

Also, check out the word "Aeon."

Aeon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even in our own culture today, people can say "forever" to mean as one taking a very long time to do something or in the fact that something can appear to take a long time to transpire.

For example:
We are now going to be late. Sarah is taking forever to get her hair done.

I don't know what kind of paint I used, but it took forever for that paint to dry the other night.

In other words the KJV is just saying.... the devil is going to be tormented for the aeon of aeons. Aion ... Aion.

αἰών​

​

That's the Greek words. In fact, if you think about it doesn't make any sense to say forever and ever. Saying "for ever" once should suffice. Right? I mean, I don't say... I have eternal eternal life. Did I stutter? Anyways, the ever and ever is saying it is from age to age.

Does a translator have to interpret the words he's translating? Take G165 for instance, does the translator have to interpret Gods intended meaning of this word in order to translate it into English? Note, the word can mean an age, the world, eternity or forever.

G165
αἰών
aiōn
ahee-ohn'
From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.

Then why do the newer translations have footnotes on many verses? Footnotes indicate that the verse or it's footnote may or may not be true, which by default leaves it up to the reader to determine what is and what is not the word of God. Which means there is no inerrant word of God in existence today. Is this what you believe?

Below is part of your comments in the other thread.

Psalm 12 never speaks about preserving the poor and needy, at least not in the inerrant bible but for the sake of argument I will use the NIV.


Psalm 12:5-8New International Version (NIV)

5 “Because the poor are plundered and the needy groan,
I will now arise,” says the Lord.
“I will protect them from those who malign them.”
6 And the words of the Lord are flawless,
like silver purified in a crucible,
like gold[a] refined seven times.

7 You, Lord, will keep the needy safe
and will protect us forever from the wicked,

Does God keep the needy safe? I think not, there are poor needy people suffering and dying miserable deaths every single day. Muslims are beheading needy Christians in the middle east. People in the inner cities are being murdered everyday, living on the streets in miserable conditions. Poor people are dying from starvation all over the world.... If God promised to keep the needy safe then he lied. But God didn't lie because he never said he would keep the needy safe, he said he would preserve his word forever.

Psalm 12:5-8King James Version (KJV)

5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
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.


God did arise on the 3rd day and he arose for the poor and needy... the poor in spirit and the ones in need of a Savior. He put us in safety from those that puff at us. Below is an example of a puffer.

Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

God set us in safety by giving us the pure words of the Lord so that when the puffers come, we go to scripture.

Is the beast and the false prophet going to be tormented forever (all of eternity future) or not?

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Are you planning on ruling and reigning for ever and ever (eternity future) or are you planning on ruling and reigning forever like it took the paint a long time to dry?

Rev_22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Both. It's also the way the word aionias is used elsewhere in the NT (usually indicating a very long time, the same expression is attached to God in Revelation 4:10, and elsewhere in the NT, when discussing his eternality), and in other Greek literature.

The combined use here with a second genitive aionion is saying something along the lines of "for an age of ages", which is a kind of expression used to indicate "a stupidly long time". This was a common way of using time and numbers in those cultures (i.e. Jesus 70x7 is not supposed to mean we forgive only 490 times, but that we give endlessly), and it's reflected in contemporary texts.

I've never used the GWT, so I can't really comment on it as a whole. As I said, I think the KJV is opaque, and the GWT also seems a little unclear, (and I' not sure about it's interpretation that the shadow is connected to the body, I'm not sure that's what is meant by Paul's use of shadow) although perhaps the context makes it more easily understood.

In any case, I thought you'd pick me up for not toeing the party line on the previous point, where I actually agreed the KJV rendered forever and ever correctly Believe it or not, Modern Translation Proponents (as you refer to me) are actually allowed to agree with the KJV sometimes

I think you're reading the text wrong. Tell me, does God lie when he says, quite clearly of the needy:

"I will now arise,” says the Lord.
“I will protect them from those who malign them.”"

Very simply question, unless you want to misread verse 5 as well.

I think it should be obvious what is intended by protection here, and it goes beyond simply having your head not chopped off. Christians generally have the same eternal protection as well.

Psalm 12:5-8King James Version (KJV)

Click to expand...

What an incredibly specious reading. So just so we're clear, you're arguing that Psalm 12:5-8 is referring to both the needy and the words of the Scriptures at the same time? He's going to preserve both the needy and the words? Despite the grammatical issues inherent in that approach?

I refer you back to the post on the previous page that you have either avoided or have not seen (Maybe because you might have missed it). Whatever the reason, forever does not always mean forever in the Bible. In my post, I list a bunch of verses that make it unmistakable that forever can also be in reference to a temporal sense. Like Nick01 pointed out. It can refer to: "an age of ages." Ages can be ongoing (eternal) and they also can be limited, too.

Oops, I missed this reply.

There's a few problems here.

One is that the context of the puffing is very different to that in 1 Corinthians and Colossians. The Issue there is pride amongst Christians - Paul is addressing those who take pride in particular leaders, or in immoral acts by church members, etc. Puffing is used as an adjective (to be puffed up).

In Psalm 12, as in a great many of the Psalms, the issue is of the poor and needy being oppressed by others (not necessarily fellow Jews), violently and by force. They are being puffed at as 'verb'. Just because the same word appears in two places in English does not mean they mean the same thing or are being used the same way (particularly when one is a translation of a Hebrew word, the other of a Greek word, and the translation is not necessarily made with other uses of that word in mind). The solution for the oppressed is not in simply refuting others with correct words - the protection God envisages in Psalm 12 and other Psalms is more than that. God himself will arise and intervene (as he did historically in terms of Israel's waxing and waning standing amongst the nations, and finally through the cross).

And, of course, all of this neatly skirts around the simple issue that the Hebrew does not grammatically allow the referent to be the words in the first place (due to the need for gender agreement via inflection), and the use of the word 'preserve' in the OT is always in reference to protection of people, with, if I recall, one exception, and that is not a preservation of anything remotely approaching Scriptures (I did do a post somewhere on this, I'll have to see if I can find it so you can have the citation) . If you want to say that using God's word as a defence against the words of others is a good thing, that's great. Go for it. But that's simply not what Psalm 12 is about, and it's a misuse of the text to use it in that way as if it were some kind of proof.

But even ignoring everything I posted, even if I agreed with your reading of Psalm 12, it still doesn't come any closer to proving that God preserved his word verbatim in the KJV anymore than it could be said to promise that God actually preserved his word in one specific, or that he preserved it amongst the totality of 1000s of MSS available to us today, and particularly (segue! ) amongst the earliest witnesses in the majuscules, and (especially in the last decade or so) amongst the papyrii.

But?.... How I know which ones are the perverted translations?

Being able to read Greek is always helpful

But honestly, there are very few translations that are downright perverted, and you should just stay completely away from. Most translations are fine to use if you're aware of their particular idiosyncracies and, occasionally, foibles.

Having said that, I'd say The Message is just rubbish, and is not useful for anything much at all. I can see how it might be useful in a limited set of circumstances, but only if you know what a given passage ACTUALLY says, and never as a regular study Bible. The JW's New World Translation fiddles with a few key texts (e.g John 1) in order to make it set better with their theological positions, but apart from a few (admittedly key) doctrinal texts, it's not that far out of line, and most people are aware of the problems with NWT. There a couple of other such sect-style Bibles that no one really uses. Most of the mainline translations are fine, although I'll be the first to admit we really don't need as many as we've got.

My usual translation is the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Often I will refer to other translations if I'm having trouble understanding a passage. My usual extended set is the HCSB, NASB, ESV, NET. I will use the NIV with other people because that's still what most people use, and I don't have a particular problem with it, but I just don't use it that much myself. I will also refer to the KJV from time to time, particularly if I want insight into a textual issue, or if I want a slightly dramatic Jacobean reading that I can't get out of the ESV

I've never said a person can't be saved without the KJV, I've actually said the opposite. I was an atheist and I wasn't saved with any bible, I had never read a bible in my life. Saved and born again are two separate things, maybe that's why you think I said a person can't be saved without the KJV.

Okay... but if God is able to preserve His Word in all languages, does that not contradict your belief that only the KJV is not corrupted?

A person is not saved without being born again...

God's word doesn't have mistakes and contradictions in it. The KJV is the only English bible I've ever seen that doesn't have mistakes and contradictions.