Bible Study Bible Corruptions

[for_his_glory]

Seriously, we are going to argue over which version is right or wrong!!! Is it man's words or the words of God through the Holy Spirit that teaches us all truths.

IMO, the newer the simplicity of these various newer versions actually take away from the KJV version that is not that hard to understand. These newer version are like not adding enough coffee to the pot and makes for weak coffee.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Seriously, we are going to argue over which version is right or wrong!!! Is it man's words or the words of God through the Holy Spirit that teaches us all truths.

IMO, the newer the simplicity of these various newer versions actually take away from the KJV version that is not that hard to understand. These newer version are like not adding enough coffee to the pot and makes for weak coffee.

It’s not that it’s newer or weakens the word, but having the word of God in today’s language. Languages evolve, English is not excluded from this. Look at some of the words used then and their meanings now. Men in gay clothing? ? I think of men in skinny jeans when I read that. And I know that that didn’t mean that when the 1611 was translated.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Seriously, we are going to argue over which version is right or wrong!!! Is it man's words or the words of God through the Holy Spirit that teaches us all truths.

IMO, the newer the simplicity of these various newer versions actually take away from the KJV version that is not that hard to understand. These newer version are like not adding enough coffee to the pot and makes for weak coffee.

Suffered = allowed

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

 

[jasonc]

It’s not that it’s newer or weakens the word, but having the word of God in today’s language. Languages evolve, English is not excluded from this. Look at some of the words used then and their meanings now. Men in gay clothing? ? I think of men in skinny jeans when I read that. And I know that that didn’t mean that when the 1611 was translated.

even that is done with Hebrew translations.

i can post a verse from the tanach from chabad and go dig up the chumash(personal bible that is your families) that is my grandparents one and there will be a difference in that its in kjv english and the one in chabad will have hebrew on the right and more modern english in translation. while any jew raised in the temple wouldnt need a bible in english, they learn hebrew and recite the torah in hebrew during their bar and bat mitzvah.

 

[jasonc]

Suffered = allowed

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

to be fair the army does use that

i shall not suffer you to do that.its not common in use now but i heard that in use by my seniors

i add these.
perchance, albeit,

 

[SovereignGrace]

even that is done with Hebrew translations.

i can post a verse from the tanach from chabad and go dig up the chumash(personal bible that is your families) that is my grandparents one and there will be a difference in that its in kjv english and the one in chabad will have hebrew on the right and more modern english in translation. while any jew raised in the temple wouldnt need a bible in english, they learn hebrew and recite the torah in hebrew during their bar and bat mitzvah.

The KJVO movement goes further than any ppl group I know of. Even the Apostles quoted from the LXX moreso than they did the Hebrew texts. By the that time, the LXX was their go to word of God.

 

[Quantrill]

I would choose TR and BM and compare the others to them.
As I showed in my previous post, it is not justthe texts that is the culprit, but fauly/inaccuratetranslations,

I could read the NIV, NKJV, just as well [as I could read Rotherham's or YLT for more accuracy and literalness]. I just simply avoid the KJV]

Received Text - The Received Text, or Textus Receptus, was compiled in 1516 by Desiderius Erasmus from a few manuscripts that were accepted at the time as the only trustworthy and reliable manuscripts. Later manuscript discoveries, (Majority Text), have confirmed the reliability of the Received Text.

Majority Text - Similar to the Received Text, but also is made up of a large majority of other Greek manuscripts.
The Majority Text are the majority of the extant Greek manuscripts used in the making of Textus Receptus, (Text Received), that the King James Bible is translated from.

Alexandrian Text - Is based mainly on two manuscripts; the Vaticanus, and the Sinaiticus.
Almost all modern English Bibles are based on the Alexandrian Text, (NIV, NAS, Good News, Living Bible, etc.); however, the King James Version is based on the Received Text.

Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English revision committee which produced the English Revised Version of the Bible. The corresponding American revision committee, which developed the American Standard Version of 1901, was headed by another liberal evolutionist, Philip Schaff. Most new versions since that time have adopted the same presuppositions as those of the 19th century revisers.
============
And don't forget about Bibles printed in the non-English versions.....
This site also shows those:

Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt

The Parallel Greek New Testament can be downloaded for $5.00 or shipped on CD ROM, and contains 14 parallel Bible texts, including 5 Greek font texts.

www.greeknewtestament.com

Other Sites by johnhurt.com

King James Bible American Standard Version Bible in Basic English Darby Bible Douay Rheims Catholic Bible The Book of Jasher World English Bible Noah Webster Bible Weymouth New Testament Young's Literal Translation Afrikaans Bible Albanian Bible Bulgarian Bible Cebuano Bible Chinese "Big 5" Encoding Chinese "GB" Encoding Croatian Bible Danish Bible Dutch Bible Finnish Bible French Bible Gaelic (Manx) Bible Gaelic (Scots) Bible German Bible Greek New Testament (1550) Haitian Creole Bible Hebrew Old Testament Hungarian Bible Indonesian Baha Bible Indonesian Baru Bible Indonesian Lama Bible Italian Bible Korean Bible Latin Vulgate Latvian New Testament Maori Bible Modern Greek Norwegian Bible Portuguese Bible Rumanian Bible Russian Bible (Windows 1251 Encoding) Russian Bible (KO18R Encoding) Spanish Bible Swahili Bible Swedish Bible Tagalog Bible Ukrainian Bible Uma New Testament Vietnamese Bible (UTF8 Encoding) Vietnamese Bible (VNI Times Encoding)

You can read which ever Bible you want to. My pont is that the KJV is based upon the Majority Text and modern translations are based upon the Minority Text. To which you have agreed.

My point is more is better. Concerning the New Testament the King James is based on comparison of a larger amount of manuscripts than the modern translations are. The King James Old Testament is based upon the Hebrew Bible where as the Modern translations are based heavily on the so called Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old.

The KJV is a sound version and one that I would recommend.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

The KJVO movement goes further than any ppl group I know of. Even the Apostles quoted from the LXX moreso than they did the Hebrew texts. By the that time, the LXX was their go to word of God.

That the Septuagint was 'their go to word of God', as you say, is an assumption. That the Septuagint ever really existed is an assumption.

Where is the Septuagint found? Everyone talks about, but where is it?

Quantrill

 

[jasonc]

The KJVO movement goes further than any ppl group I know of. Even the Apostles quoted from the LXX moreso than they did the Hebrew texts. By the that time, the LXX was their go to word of God.

I'm not a fan of the lxx,but well the language of the land wasn't Hebrew .the jews spoke Aramaic ,Hebrew was in the temple only .

Abba ,is an Aramaic word .

 

[SovereignGrace]

That the Septuagint was 'their go to word of God', as you say, is an assumption. That the Septuagint ever really existed is an assumption.

Where is the Septuagint found? Everyone talks about, but where is it?

Quantrill

Best I can gather, when comparing Paul’s writings when he quoted OT scripture, it varied from the Hebrew texts.

 

[Quantrill]

Best I can gather, when comparing Paul’s writings when he quoted OT scripture, it varied from the Hebrew texts.

I don't see how or why that proves any 'Septuagint'.

The idea of a Septuagint is based on the fraudulent "Letter of Aristeas". The whole story about the 72 translators in Alexandria coming up with this miraculous translation is a myth. Christianity can't even get the Roman numeral right. Instead of LXX to stand for the Septuagint, it should have been LXXII.

What is referred to as the Septuagint is more likely Origins translation of the Old Testament into Greek written in 3rd century A.D. And of course Origin was Egyptian and most likely from Alexandria. So this glorious story of a mythical Septuagint would lend credibility to Origins translation, but it would be seen as a copy of a so called Septuagint that existed before the time of Christ.

It was an effort to shift the preferred translation away from Palestine to Alexandria Egypt. Just as Westcott and Hort did with their Alexandrian Text.

Quantrill

 

[jaybo]

Well, the KJV Old Testament is based on the Maserotic Text. It is not based on a variety of texts. The modern translations are based on a 'variety of sources', your words. The so called Septuagint, which modern translations depend on, is but a translation of Hebrew to Greek originating out of Africa. The KJV depends on the Hebrew originating out of Palestine, the land of the Jews. The Old Testament in the KJV is the exact same as the Hebrew Bible.

The New Testament, as I already said for the KJV, is based on the majority of manuscripts. The Modern translations are based on a very few manuscripts. This makes the KJV superior to the modern translations.

You can use words like 'eclectic' all you want. The fact is, the modern versions are based upon the minority texts. Some 45 I believe. The KJV is based upon the majority, some 5,000. More is better.

The KJV is sound. Modern translations are a failure and should be rejected.

Quantrill

Whatever. It's obvious that you think the KJV is superior to all others, although there is no reasonable basis for this claim. You're just rationalizing to justify that one single 400+-year-old translation is superior to all others. If that what makes you happy go for it but it's a false belief.

Some day when you have done the research get back to me. Until then, I'm not interested.

 

[jaybo]

Best I can gather, when comparing Paul’s writings when he quoted OT scripture, it varied from the Hebrew texts.

The Bible -- actually the Old Testament only -- in widespread use at the time of Paul (also Jesus and the Apostles) was the Septuagint. Most Hebrews (except for the scribes) couldn't read ancient Hebrew. The Septuagint is the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew "books".

 

[jaybo]

I don't see how or why that proves any 'Septuagint'.

The idea of a Septuagint is based on the fraudulent "Letter of Aristeas". The whole story about the 72 translators in Alexandria coming up with this miraculous translation is a myth. Christianity can't even get the Roman numeral right. Instead of LXX to stand for the Septuagint, it should have been LXXII.

What is referred to as the Septuagint is more likely Origins translation of the Old Testament into Greek written in 3rd century A.D. And of course Origin was Egyptian and most likely from Alexandria. So this glorious story of a mythical Septuagint would lend credibility to Origins translation, but it would be seen as a copy of a so called Septuagint that existed before the time of Christ.

It was an effort to shift the preferred translation away from Palestine to Alexandria Egypt. Just as Westcott and Hort did with their Alexandrian Text.

Quantrill

If you want to know the facts behind the Septuagint this is a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

You also might want to learn about Origen, or at least how to spell his name. Origin is an English word, not the man's name.

 

[jaybo]

Seriously, we are going to argue over which version is right or wrong!!! Is it man's words or the words of God through the Holy Spirit that teaches us all truths.

IMO, the newer the simplicity of these various newer versions actually take away from the KJV version that is not that hard to understand. These newer version are like not adding enough coffee to the pot and makes for weak coffee.

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!

 

[Quantrill]

Whatever. It's obvious that you think the KJV is superior to all others, although there is no reasonable basis for this claim. You're just rationalizing to justify your false belief that one single 400+-year-old translation is superior to all others. If that what makes you happy go for it but it's a false belief.

Some day when you have done the research get back to me. Until then, I'm not interested.

Of course I believe the KJV is superior to modern versions...for the reasons given.

I have done some research on it, else I would not be saying what I have. Whether you are interested or not, is immaterial to me.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

If you want to know the facts behind the Septuagint this is a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

You also might want to learn about Origen, or at least how to spell his name. Origin is an English word, not the man's name.

Of course...wikipedia. You're one of those. You haven't done any research on the subject. You just transfer someone else's knowledge. The problem with that is, you are handcuffed when a debate starts. You can't answer questions. All you can do is shift someone to another link.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

The Bible -- actually the Old Testament only -- in widespread use at the time of Paul (also Jesus and the Apostles) was the Septuagint. Most Hebrews (except for the scribes) couldn't read ancient Hebrew. The Septuagint is the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew "books".

Where is the Septuagint?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Your (unfounded) opinion only -- which doesn't amount to much. I assume that you have at least a reasonable education, but in this case you are wrong. IOW, you don't know what you're writing about. If you want to reject years and years of Biblical scholarship, based on mountains of evidence from, not only from early manuscripts but on thousands of documents from the same period that illuminated the meaning of the languages, then therer is nothing more to discuss. You're clearly unwilling to accept findings of many devoted Christian scholars concerning God's word; you stick to what "proves" your predetermined opinion.

I, for one, have no desire to communicate further with you on this subject. Having been a church elder before I retired and having a graduate degree -- I taught others -- I know false reasoning when I read it.

'Biblical Scholarship' can be used against the Bible as well as supporting the Bible. In other words, it means nothing.

Concerning the New Testeament, modern versions of the Bible are based upon the 'Minority Text' That is some 45 documents/manuscripts. The King James is based on the Majority Text. That is some 5,000 documents/manuscripts.

Concerning the Old Testament, modern versions lean heavily on the so called Septuagint, which is also out of Alexandria as the 'Minority Text' of the New Testament is. The King James however is based upon the Hebrew Text, the Masoretic Text, which comes out of Palestine.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

You mean I'm not claiming to be the foundation of all truth -- like yourself. Read my previous post: I'm done with you and your fallacious reasoning.

How about answering my question. Where is the Septuagint?

Quantrill