Bible Study Bible Corruptions

[jasonc]

Well that's your opinion -- for what it's worth. You say, "Seriously, we are going to argue over which version is right or wrong!!!" then argue in the next paragraph that the KJV is the best. Oy!

If you think the KJV is so clearly written, what does this mean: "But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee." No translation into modern English (according to your rules)!

Your comparison of God's Word to coffee strength is beyond sad!

while its not common to use the words here ,I know what that meant years ago .but no one talks nor writes in elizabeathen English

let alone modern English from the u.k. which I know the difference.

does anyone know where the petro station is and do they test the dynamo?

 

[for_his_glory]

Suffered = allowed

How many times do we use that word today in that context?

I could be wrong, but I think the Tyndale Bible was the first Bible written in old English from 1494-1536. This Bible is credited with being the first English translation to work directly from the Hebrew and Greek. From that point on up to present day English words have grown to take on many different meanings for one word. This is why many say English is the hardest language to learn.

The point I am trying to make, and I hope jaybo is reading this, is that no matter what version one choices to read, one thing that has never changed is that only the Holy Spirit can teach us all truths. Not many can read and understand the 1611 KJV, but I can and am sure many others also can understand how it is written in old English. To me the KJV has proven an excellent version to many of us and we prefer using it over the more modern translations. I am not saying everyone has to use the KJV, but that many of us prefer it over the more modern ones that have been written.

Like I said, IMO, I feel the more newer the versions that are out there were never translated from the original Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, but translated either from the Tyndale, which I doubt, and more than likely from the KJV into our modern English today. Everyone has the right to choose which one they want and if one feels a certain version id corrupted then they need to seek the Holy Spirit for understanding and not man.

Discussions like these only cause division and brings no glory to God.

John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
John 14:26 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.

 

[for_his_glory]

Well that's your opinion -- for what it's worth. You say, "Seriously, we are going to argue over which version is right or wrong!!!" then argue in the next paragraph that the KJV is the best. Oy!

If you think the KJV is so clearly written, what does this mean: "But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee." No translation into modern English (according to your rules)!

Your comparison of God's Word to coffee strength is beyond sad!

I already said it was my opinion and I said the KJV was best for me. It makes no difference to me what version anyone chooses. Please go back and read my post #44.

 

[jaybo]

I already said it was my opinion and I said the KJV was best for me. It makes no difference to me what version anyone chooses. Please go back and read my post #44.

I agree that the best translation one can use is the one that communicates God's world as clearly and accurately as possible to the reader. Since nobody on the planet speaks, writes, or reads 17th Century Englyshe on a daily basis, it is clearly not the best version for most to use. => It is too easy to re-translate 17th Century Englyshe into 21st Century English <= and thereby introduce words and meanings that were not in the originals. It's like the kids' game of "telephone": a phrase is given to the first person who repeats it to the next person who repeats it to the next person who repeats it to the next person and so on until it gets to the last person. The last phrase is always different from the first; each step increases the chance for error.

I notice in your posts (and everyone else's) that thou does not write in anything but conventional, modern English. Why not? The answer is simple: one uses the language that expresses her/his meaning as clearly as possible. That is the main purpose of "modern" translations: to communicate the very thoughts and words of God as communicated through chosen human beings as clearly as possible, in their native language. Clearly the KJV and other 16th and 17th Century translations fail at this. Again, nobody alive today speaks/reads/writes in the Englyshe that was used centuries ago, just people who cling to an outdated translation because it makes them feel "holy".

Remember Jesus came to earth as a peasant, not royalty. He came so that He would not be like the High Priest, or a Sadducee, or a Pharisee, or any other "holy man"; he came as a homeless carpenter, a servant. He was a common man who spoke, read, and wrote in the common languages of the day: Aramaic and Koine Greek (outside of the synagogue).

If it makes no difference to you if one uses the KJV or not, why do you keep posting about the KJV being superior?

 

[SovereignGrace]

I agree that the best translation one can use is the one that communicates God's world as clearly and accurately as possible to the reader. Since nobody on the planet speaks, writes, or reads 17th Century Englyshe on a daily basis, it is clearly not the best version for most to use. => It is too easy to re-translate 17th Century Englyshe into 21st Century English <= and thereby introduce words and meanings that were not in the originals. It's like the kids' game of "telephone": a phrase is given to the first person who repeats it to the next person who repeats it to the next person who repeats it to the next person and so on until it gets to the last person. The last phrase is always different from the first; each step increases the chance for error.

I notice in your posts (and everyone else's) that thou does not write in anything but conventional, modern English. Why not? The answer is simple: one uses the language that expresses her/his meaning as clearly as possible. That is the main purpose of "modern" translations: to communicate the very thoughts and words of God as communicated through chosen human beings as clearly as possible, in their native language. Clearly the KJV and other 16th and 17th Century translations fail at this. Again, nobody alive today speaks/reads/writes in the Englyshe that was used centuries ago, just people who cling to an outdated translation because it makes them feel "holy".

Remember Jesus came to earth as a peasant, not royalty. He came so that He would not be like the High Priest, or a Sadducee, or a Pharisee, or any other "holy man"; he came as a homeless carpenter, a servant. He was a common man who spoke, read, and wrote in the common languages of the day: Aramaic and Koine Greek (outside of the synagogue).

If it makes no difference to you if one uses the KJV or not, why do you keep posting about the KJV being superior?

I agree. Whatever bible you learn best from reading should be your go to bible. I just don’t get this KJV being the only one. Based upon what? What empirical evidence is out there that proves it’s the best? Oh, it’s personal opinion. That’s what it boils down to, personal opinion. I love the NASB, but I’m not foolish enough to say it’s the only one, or even superior. To me, it’s just a really good version(amazing how the KJVO crowd won’t admit the KJ is a version, but call it the King James Bible, as if that makes it superior) that I best learn from. But I read other versions as well.

 

[Quantrill]

I agree that the best translation one can use is the one that communicates God's world as clearly and accurately as possible to the reader.

No, you're wrong coming out of the chute. The best translation is the one that reflects the original writings from God, accurately.

Your definition of a 'best translation' leaves it to the 'feel good' emotions of everyone involved. 'God's world' is a world you describe.

No wonder so many hate the KJV.

Quantrill

 

[SovereignGrace]

No, you're wrong coming out of the chute. The best translation is the one that reflects the original writings from God, accurately.

Your definition of a 'best translation' leaves it to the 'feel good' emotions of everyone involved. 'God's world' is a world you describe.

No wonder so many hate the KJV.

Quantrill

None on here(that I know of) hate the KJV, that you are falsely accusing us of. We just prefer the the modern versions over the KJV. I do not hate the KJV, but it's not in my top-5 choices, either.

 

[SovereignGrace]

No, you're wrong coming out of the chute. The best translation is the one that reflects the original writings from God, accurately.

Quantrill

And praytell how can we know the TR reflects the original writings best? What empirical evidence points to this being true?

 

[Quantrill]

And praytell how can we know the TR reflects the original writings best? What empirical evidence points to this being true?

For starters, because the Old Testament is based upon the Massoretic Text of the Hebrews in Palestine. And because the New Testament is based upon the Majority Text, or the majority of manuscripts and writings whose base is Antioch.

These are contrary to the Septuagint, and the Minority Text whose base is Alexandria, Egypt. The Hellenized Jews of Alexandria were prone to try and make their Christianity palatable to Greek philosophy. This characteristic will affect their translation, and interpretation of Scripture.

Quantrill

 

[JLB]

I agree that the best translation one can use is the one that communicates God's world as clearly and accurately as possible to the reader. Since nobody on the planet speaks, writes, or reads 17th Century Englyshe on a daily basis, it is clearly not the best version for most to use. => It is too easy to re-translate 17th Century Englyshe into 21st Century English <= and thereby introduce words and meanings that were not in the originals. It's like the kids' game of "telephone": a phrase is given to the first person who repeats it to the next person who repeats it to the next person who repeats it to the next person and so on until it gets to the last person. The last phrase is always different from the first; each step increases the chance for error.

I notice in your posts (and everyone else's) that thou does not write in anything but conventional, modern English. Why not? The answer is simple: one uses the language that expresses her/his meaning as clearly as possible. That is the main purpose of "modern" translations: to communicate the very thoughts and words of God as communicated through chosen human beings as clearly as possible, in their native language. Clearly the KJV and other 16th and 17th Century translations fail at this. Again, nobody alive today speaks/reads/writes in the Englyshe that was used centuries ago, just people who cling to an outdated translation because it makes them feel "holy".

Remember Jesus came to earth as a peasant, not royalty. He came so that He would not be like the High Priest, or a Sadducee, or a Pharisee, or any other "holy man"; he came as a homeless carpenter, a servant. He was a common man who spoke, read, and wrote in the common languages of the day: Aramaic and Koine Greek (outside of the synagogue).

If it makes no difference to you if one uses the KJV or not, why do you keep posting about the KJV being superior?

Personally, I use the NKJV to read and the KJV to study.

Other versions I sometimes refer to are the NASB.

NIV not so much, but have found one or two verses in the NIV that do seem to communicate the truth well.


JLB

 

[JLB]

None on here(that I know of) hate the KJV, that you are falsely accusing us of. We just prefer the the modern versions over the KJV. I do not hate the KJV, but it's not in my top-5 choices, either.

No, you're wrong coming out of the chute. The best translation is the one that reflects the original writings from God, accurately.

Your definition of a 'best translation' leaves it to the 'feel good' emotions of everyone involved. 'God's world' is a world you describe.

No wonder so many hate the KJV.

Quantrill

Maybe each of you could post a verse from your preferred version that is important to you and let us see how it compares to the other‘s version.


Here’s one from the NKJV.


If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. John 15:10 NKJV


I believe it’s important in these last days to guard our hearts from the love of God growing cold, as Jesus warned.


Here’s why —


Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15 NKJV




JLB

 

[SovereignGrace]

I’ll post two...

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.[1 John 4:10]

We love, because He first loved us.[1 John 4:19]

 

[jaybo]

No, you're wrong coming out of the chute. The best translation is the one that reflects the original writings from God, accurately.

Your definition of a 'best translation' leaves it to the 'feel good' emotions of everyone involved. 'God's world' is a world you describe.

No wonder so many hate the KJV.

Quantrill

And your criteria for " the one that reflects the original writings from God, accurately" is? The KJV is a => translation <= and therefore cannot be 100% accurate considering that there are so many differences between the ancient source languages and the English product. Additionally, NOBODY ANYWHERE SPEAKS 17TH CENTURY ENGLYSHE AS THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE so the KJV must be re-translated in the reader's mind.

So many hate (really? hate? Ya' think?) the KJV because it is an outdated translation, full of errors and mistranslations. Let me know when thou seest a unicorn.

The best translation is the one that conveys God's Word in one's native language as clearly as possible. That rules out the KJV from the start. So many excellent translations exist that there is no reason to use a 400+ year-old relic -- ever.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Now, some may kick on the NASB’s rendering, as it leaves out “Him” of “We love Him”. But that’s not in the original Greek, but an addition by translators. In no way does it harm the verse, but the NASB states it the way it was written in Greek.

ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς.

1 John 4:19 Greek Text Analysis

biblehub.com

 

[SovereignGrace]

And your criteria for " the one that reflects the original writings from God, accurately" is? The KJV is a => translation <= and therefore cannot be 100% accurate considering that there are so many differences between the ancient source languages and the English product. Additionally, NOBODY ANYWHERE SPEAKS 17TH CENTURY ENGLYSHE AS THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE so the KJV must be re-translated in the reader's mind.

So many hate (really? hate? Ya' think?) the KJV because it is an outdated translation, full of errors and mistranslations. Let me know when thou seest a unicorn.

The best translation is the one that conveys God's Word in one's native language as clearly as possible. That rules out the KJV from the start. So many excellent translations exist that there is no reason to use a 400+ year-old relic -- ever.

Look at all the revisions. I have one that has Timotheos and another one has Timothy in the same verse. Plus, which is inspired, Cambridge or Oxford?

 

[jaybo]

Maybe each of you could post a verse from your preferred version that is important to you and let us see how it compares to the other‘s version.


Here’s one from the NKJV.


If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. John 15:10 NKJV


I believe it’s important in these last days to guard our hearts from the love of God growing cold, as Jesus warned.


Here’s why —


Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15 NKJV




JLB

John 15:10, NET: " If you obey[ad] my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love."

1 John 3:15, NET " Everyone who hates his fellow Christian is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him."

 

[jaybo]

Now, some may kick on the NASB’s rendering, as it leaves out “Him” of “We love Him”. But that’s not in the original Greek, but an addition by translators. In no way does it harm the verse, but the NASB states it the way it was written in Greek.

ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς.

1 John 4:19 Greek Text Analysis

biblehub.com

" We love because he loved us first. " Translator's note: " No object is supplied for the verb love (the author with his propensity for obscurity has left it to the readers to supply the object). The obvious objects that could be supplied from the context are either God himself or other believers (the brethren). It may well be that the author has both in mind at this point; the statement is general enough to cover both alternatives, although the following verse puts more emphasis on love for the brethren.

 

[JLB]

John 15:10, NET: " If you obey[ad] my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love."

1 John 3:15, NET " Everyone who hates his fellow Christian is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him."

In your perspective, how does the NET differ from the NKJV.

I like the way the NET translates 1 John 3:15



JLB

 

[JLB]

I’ll post two...

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.[1 John 4:10]

We love, because He first loved us.[1 John 4:19]

Could you post the version you are using?


1 John 4:20 is also one of my favorites.

 

[jaybo]

In your perspective, how does the NET differ from the NKJV.

I like the way the NET translates 1 John 3:15



JLB

I am not that familiar with the NKJV. The main thing that I like about the NET is that there are more than 60,000(!) translators' notes that do an excellent job of explaining, not only why a word, phrase, sentence, etc. was chosen, but the alternatives, problems, etc. In essence it thoroughly explains the reasons and difficulties of translating the ancient texts into 21st Century English.

Those who stick with one translation that they claim to be "superior" to others just don't understand the art/science of translation.