If Jesus Preached in Your Church, Which Bible Would He Use?

[JohnDB]

Tyndale was burnt for translating the bible.. so far i haven't seen any of these newbie version authors go to the stake.. and we probably never will..

This is a test i use whether its Godly or no..

II Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

Satan hates godliness

They dug up his bones and burned them 40 years after his death.... Just because of his translations.

It was about the Church keeping the reigns on all knowledge vx the common man having access to God without a priest.

Where both sides had merit to their arguments one clearly had the "bully pulpit" and one was doing as God said.

I look to Acts 9 where Jesus said to Saul, "Why are you persecuting ME?".
Even though Saul was zealous for God and was persecuting those of " the Way" Jesus said that he was persecuting God/Jesus himself.

The Jewish believers were all over the place theologically speaking... They read the LXX which wasn't the greatest translation possible. 70 guys in 70 days and you expect it to be perfect? Not hardly.

And Greek is a better receptor language than English.

So...I cut some slack over translation issues.

But also...

This business about Jesus saying he won't go and then does was a matter of deception...not an out and out lie.
Jesus already was deceptive by his parentage and appearance. He made the world and is the rightful ruler...but appeared as a man...and a poor one at that.
If that isn't deception then I don't know what is.

 

[Jim Parker]

70 guys in 70 days

That is the legendary story.
Reality looks more like this: (wikipedia) The translation of the Septuagint itself began in the 3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE,[20][21][22] initially in Alexandria, but in time elsewhere as well.[8]

8. Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva (2001). Invitation to the Septuagint. Paternoster Press. ISBN 1-84227-061-3.

20. Life after death: a history of the afterlife in the religions of the West (2004), Anchor Bible Reference Library, Alan F. Segal, p.363

21. Gilles Dorival, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerfs, 1988), p.111

22. "[...] die griechische Bibelübersetzung, die einem innerjüdischen Bedürfnis entsprang [...] [von den] Rabbinern zuerst gerühmt (..) Später jedoch, als manche ungenaue Übertragung des hebräischen Textes in der Septuaginta und Übersetzungsfehler die Grundlage für hellenistische Irrlehren abgaben, lehnte man die Septuaginta ab." Verband der Deutschen Juden (Hrsg.), neu hrsg. von Walter Homolka, Walter Jacob, Tovia Ben Chorin: Die Lehren des Judentums nach den Quellen; München, Knesebeck, 1999, Bd.3, S. 43ff

 

[JohnDB]

That is the legendary story.
Reality looks more like this: (wikipedia) The translation of the Septuagint itself began in the 3rd century BCE and was completed by 132 BCE,[20][21][22] initially in Alexandria, but in time elsewhere as well.[8]

8. Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva (2001). Invitation to the Septuagint. Paternoster Press. ISBN 1-84227-061-3.

20. Life after death: a history of the afterlife in the religions of the West (2004), Anchor Bible Reference Library, Alan F. Segal, p.363

21. Gilles Dorival, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerfs, 1988), p.111

22. "[...] die griechische Bibelübersetzung, die einem innerjüdischen Bedürfnis entsprang [...] [von den] Rabbinern zuerst gerühmt (..) Später jedoch, als manche ungenaue Übertragung des hebräischen Textes in der Septuaginta und Übersetzungsfehler die Grundlage für hellenistische Irrlehren abgaben, lehnte man die Septuaginta ab." Verband der Deutschen Juden (Hrsg.), neu hrsg. von Walter Homolka, Walter Jacob, Tovia Ben Chorin: Die Lehren des Judentums nach den Quellen; München, Knesebeck, 1999, Bd.3, S. 43ff

Anyone who uses "BCE" has an axe to grind against Christiandom. LOL

But...I listened to the hype.
Meh...it still was a flawed work regardless of how long it took and how many it took to get there.

 

[Jim Parker]

Anyone who uses "BCE" has an axe to grind against Christiandom. LOL

That's your response???? Really?? Any academic who wants to be published today had better use "BCE" or be persecuted by the commies who control tenure.

it still was a flawed work regardless of how long it took and how many it took to get there.

It is flawed. (According to F.F. Bruce, Paul corrects the LXX where it deviates from the Hebrew.)But it was also the most widely used translation in the 1st century.
And every translation into every language is flawed since there is no such thing as a "word-for-word, exact" translation.

 

[JohnDB]

That's your response???? Really?? Any academic who wants to be published today had better use "BCE" or be persecuted by the commies who control tenure.

It is flawed. (According to F.F. Bruce, Paul corrects the LXX where it deviates from the Hebrew.)But it was also the most widely used translation in the 1st century.
And every translation into every language is flawed since there is no such thing as a "word-for-word, exact" translation.

We agree?
Say it isn't so!
We are supposed to vehemently disagree and insinuate that everyone who doesn't agree with me/you is possibly an unbeliever....

Ahh well. I guess we are just doing it wrong.

 

[jasonc]

Only the Hebrew isn't flawed.want a pure understanding,read it in Hebrew.

Lol

 

[wwjd_kilden]

So, if I got this right: according to turnorburn every person in the world that does not read the KJV is making Jesus a liar.
TOB: Do you think we will speak KJV style english in heaven? Or English at all?

 

[Edward]

I think there's too much dissention and bickering over what is not a salvific issue.

Jesus said His word won't pass away...it's that simple. I'm not fond of the weird translations like the NIV, BUT! If it's all I had I'd go for it and pray pray pray for enlightenment from the Holy Spirit.

Personally, I likey the KJV, and the NKJV. It's what I'm used to, not that im'a KJV only purist or anything like that.

As much as I do cringe a little over missing verses, I don't think that I'd have no hope of salvation if all I had was a NIV version. It's the Holy Spirit's job to fill in the blanks for us, and He will, oh ye of little faith. Lol.

 

[turnorburn]

So, if I got this right: according to turnorburn every person in the world that does not read the KJV is making Jesus a liar.
TOB: Do you think we will speak KJV style english in heaven? Or English at all?

You don't have it right.. the man that translated this made Jesus a liar.. read the article again.. the link is at the bottom..

Would he use a Bible that makes him a liar, as the NIV and ESV do in John 7:8?

John 7:8-10 (KJV) Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

(NIV) “You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee. However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.

(ESV) “You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” After saying this, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/blog/if-jesus-preached-in-your-church-which-bible-would-he-use/

 

[wwjd_kilden]

This could be me being a bit dense, but: If he didn't say he wasn't coming, why the need for the "but"?
PS: I don't have access to a NIV other than online, but both of my non- kjv ones have a footnote saying that "some manuscripts say"

 

[JohnDB]

I think there's too much dissention and bickering over what is not a salvific issue.

Jesus said His word won't pass away...it's that simple. I'm not fond of the weird translations like the NIV, BUT! If it's all I had I'd go for it and pray pray pray for enlightenment from the Holy Spirit.

Personally, I likey the KJV, and the NKJV. It's what I'm used to, not that im'a KJV only purist or anything like that.

As much as I do cringe a little over missing verses, I don't think that I'd have no hope of salvation if all I had was a NIV version. It's the Holy Spirit's job to fill in the blanks for us, and He will, oh ye of little faith. Lol.

You said this just for me didn't ya?
LOL.

You know that it's the one I really studied the hardest and that since I know how the translators did their work I can understand it more clearly than the others.

But the NKJV is my wife's favorite.

Not a huge fan of the NASB....its supposed to be word for word but it still translates many idioms of speech rather poorly IMHO.
But sometimes it's good as a second or third reading.

 

[Edward]

(NIV) “You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee. However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.

Well, we know that He did not lie, that's a given.

I would surmise that His actual meaning of, my time is not fully come...isn't speaking of crucifixion, but something innocuous, and after they left, He got ready so went?

God has His secrets and so what if He spoke vaguely to conceal that which He would...

But the carnally minded lawyers/legalists can make much ado about nothing, that it's little wonder that the carnal mind is enmity against God.

 

[Edward]

You said this just for me didn't ya?
LOL.

You know that it's the one I really studied the hardest and that since I know how the translators did their work I can understand it more clearly than the others.

But the NKJV is my wife's favorite.

Not a huge fan of the NASB....its supposed to be word for word but it still translates many idioms of speech rather poorly IMHO.
But sometimes it's good as a second or third reading.

Not at all Brother. I was just responding to the general tone and direction of the thread.

You prolly understand better than others because of the diligence and the Holy Spirit. I don't think this is a who's smarter/studied more with their carnal mind at all thing, lol.
Scripture tells us the carnal mind cannot understand, that the Word must be spiritually discerned. Right?

:yes

 

[turnorburn]

This could be me being a bit dense, but: If he didn't say he wasn't coming, why the need for the "but"?
PS: I don't have access to a NIV other than online, but both of my non- kjv ones have a footnote saying that "some manuscripts say"

The word isn't "but" its "yet" meaning i go not up yet.. if a person says he isn't going somewhere then goes behind your back what do you call that person?

 

[turnorburn]

Maybe you haven't seen this?

PLEASE READ THIS.

1. The New Testament was written in Greek.
2. The originals are all gone, no one has them. But there are over 5,300 extant (existing) Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available. About 95-97% of them agree together. They are called the Majority Text.
3. The remaining 3-5% that disagree with the majority of manuscripts.
4. A man named Erasmus, a brilliant scholar and reformer in his own right, examined a collection of Majority Text Greek manuscripts. He compiled them into a Greek New Testament based on the readings that the true church has accepted throughout the centuries. His compilation came to be known as the Textus Receptus. The King James Bible translation is based on the Greek text found in the Textus Receptus.
5. The new Bible versions are not based on Erasmus' Textus Receptus. They are based on the Greek New Testament compiled by a couple of heretick infidel blasphemers named Westcott and Hort (you will see this when you read their own words below).
   
   Ignorant people are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

 

[wwjd_kilden]

I know the bibles are translated, which is why I don't see the point in sticking with Shakespearian English....
and: no thanks, I am not prone to read articles endorsed by people throwing around words like "infidel"

 

[Jim Parker]

I think there's too much dissention and bickering over what is not a salvific issue.

It is my opinion that all the divisions in the body of Christ are of Satanic origin.
Certainly Satan heard Jesus say ""Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand;" (Mat 12L25 RSV) and has been working steadily for the past 2000 years to divide the body of Christ so that Christians will be fighting with each other rather than against him. HE has been successful. We've had 2000 years to "...make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you..." (Mat 28:19-20 RSV)
Has that happened?
Obviously not but we do have about 50,000 denominations, sects, etc. who can't get along with the result that the unsaved assume we can't possibly be God's messengers of peace.

iakov the fool

 

[JohnDB]

Maybe you haven't seen this?

PLEASE READ THIS.

1. The New Testament was written in Greek.
2. The originals are all gone, no one has them. But there are over 5,300 extant (existing) Greek manuscripts of the New Testament available. About 95-97% of them agree together. They are called the Majority Text.
3. The remaining 3-5% that disagree with the majority of manuscripts.
4. A man named Erasmus, a brilliant scholar and reformer in his own right, examined a collection of Majority Text Greek manuscripts. He compiled them into a Greek New Testament based on the readings that the true church has accepted throughout the centuries. His compilation came to be known as the Textus Receptus. The King James Bible translation is based on the Greek text found in the Textus Receptus.
5. The new Bible versions are not based on Erasmus' Textus Receptus. They are based on the Greek New Testament compiled by a couple of heretick infidel blasphemers named Westcott and Hort (you will see this when you read their own words below).
   
   Ignorant people are now saying that the Authorized King James Bible is wrong because they have believed the scholarship of these two blaspheming infidels. You will read their words for yourself in this article.

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm

Wescott and Hort were and are scholars of literature of that time period. They are fully fluent in Sifre, Midrash, and Talmud...as well as other literature of that time period. So when other manuscripts coming from Egypt and other sources all disagreed with the incestuous copies of manuscripts held by Church officials and recognized that the "New to them" manuscripts more aligned with all the literature that quoted the "new" manuscripts they deduced that the Egyptian manuscripts must be more accurate accounting for penmanship and common copyist errors.

To this day the understanding of both Matthew and Hebrews has been made very clear by these two individuals who wrote to a Jewish audience who would easily understand these things but is lost on us Westernized people.

 

[Jim Parker]

I know the bibles are translated, which is why I don't see the point in sticking with Shakespearian English

Shakespearian would be Elizabethan rather than Jacobean. I don't know if there's much of a difference. Probably not.
The joke on the street at the time of King James was, "Elizabeth was king and now James is queen." It was in reference to his very open and unabashed preference for male "companionship."

iakov

 

[JohnDB]

Shakespearian would be Elizabethan rather than Jacobean. I don't know if there's much of a difference. Probably not.
The joke on the street at the time of King James was, "Elizabeth was king and now James is queen." It was in reference to his very open and unabashed preference for male "companionship."

iakov

Yes, my early years of reading the KJV made studying Shakespeare much easier.

But to this day I still have a copy of the New Jerusalem Bible...

It has some awesome notes in it. I'm not exactly sure the sourcing of them but I haven't found anything horrible about them yet.