Which Bible translation is a true translation from the origi

[Free]

And yet, among the most divisive and damaging things in the church in recent times has been the KJVO movement.

Try to think back to a time before these "new age" bibles existed.

Case in point.

 

[Geo]

anthony123: Unfortunately there are no original manuscripts for the Bible, so all authenticity and original writing is up for debate.

So essentially God is a liar. Right?
Psalm 12: 6-7 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.
Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in Heaven.
Psalm 119:111 Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart.
Psalm 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
Ecclesiastes 3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
1 Peter 1:23-25 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away. 25 But the word of the LORD endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

They don't call Him a liar, they simply do not understand His nature

they force themselves to ignore these points of self-testimony to the best of their ability,

since there is ONLY One Holy God there can therefore be only ONE Holy Bible

everyone that does not have at least that much logic, has understood nothing yet

it's not faulty logic - it's no logic - resulting from Unbelief - plain and simple

 

[Free]

since there is ONLY One Holy God there can therefore be only ONE Holy Bible

everyone that does not have at least that much logic, has understood nothing yet

it's not faulty logic - it's no logic - resulting from Unbelief - plain and simple

lol

 

[Steve]

The rapidly diminishing King James Only movement will dwindle away in time; so, let them fulminate as they will, cuz nobody's listening.

Let me ask you a question. Or four.


Do you believe that God raised up men to hate the Received Text? Are you telling me that God despised the fact that the original translators had a Received Text only policy and refused all other manuscripts? Why would God bless any work in the way that He so obviously blessed the Authorized Bible and then ultimately wind up despising it so much that He raised men who would loathe the Received Text, men that would secretly seek to replace the current standard Bible bible using corrupted manuscripts and ultimately publish their own bible?


That all sounds like the works of satan to me. You know dividing the church and with holding God's Word, despising purity of truth, etc. I can't be so quick to attribute the works of satan to the Holy Ghost myself. These so called bibles have actually done a lot of damage to the churches and the faith over the last hundred years.


Also, since you believe in the moral decay of mankind, when do you believe that the following passages of scripture will take place? By that I mean when will it get worse than it is. Or do you believe it's getting better?


2Tm:3:12: Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
2Tm:3:13: But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
2Tm:3:14: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2Tm:3:15: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Tm:3:17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


BTW,,,that says all scripture. I sure wouldn't think it wise for anyone to take away any scripture or add to it at all.


Re:22:18: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Re:22:19: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Re:22:20: He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Re:22:21: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Certainly. Ask away. No, I do not believe God raised up men to ;hate' the received text. I believe that the 1611 translators were the best in their fields at that time. They wer not perfect(e.g., that Richard Whats-His-Name that stood drunk all the time---'never went to bed sober', they said. But, I digress...) and they recommended the use of other versions. (Preface to the Readers). I believe that the KJ was good in its own time. It is now waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of date in its syntax and English usage; that's why God has raised up other men to translate His LIVING word to the people of today. I do know what you are getting at, about Hort saying he 'hated' the TR. That was written when he was a young, unknowledgeable man in his early 20's, I believe. Wetcott/Hort demanded that the Revised Version differ as little as possible from the KJ. People made new translations in the 18th and 19th centuries as well: Webster; Wesley; Darby; Julia-somebody. BTW, I am at work and am going SOLELY on memory, so please excuse any errata.)
The Scriptures given were applicable then as well as today. No, I do not believe things are getting better!!! Just look at who is in the White House for proof positive. I believe that we could very well be living in the last times. But, no-one knows the day or the hour, like William Miller, Ellen G. White, Charles Taze Russell and Topping thought they did.
I believe God gave us a riches in manuscripts. And some people do not understand King James, and that's that. I happen to prefer the Geneva Bile to King James. I think the NIV stinks---always have. I also think inclusive language translations are dead wrong, so ix-nay on the NRSV and its ilk. I think translations like the HCSB, ESV, and God's Word Translation, are a breath of fresh air. My reason for not preferring the KJV are based on comprehension and understandability; NOT the TR. I belueve the Byzantine-type manuscripts have a placce in the Church alongside the others. So, if you like and use KJV, hey, God bless you. But, don't fo saying the modern versions are not Bibles and that sort of garbage, because it simply is not true(other than the NWT, naturally).

 

[ronniechoate34]

Certainly. Ask away. No, I do not believe God raised up men to ;hate' the received text. I believe that the 1611 translators were the best in their fields at that time. They wer not perfect(e.g., that Richard Whats-His-Name that stood drunk all the time---'never went to bed sober', they said. But, I digress...) and they recommended the use of other versions. (Preface to the Readers). I believe that the KJ was good in its own time. It is now waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of date in its syntax and English usage; that's why God has raised up other men to translate His LIVING word to the people of today.

Okay so that's what you believe. So tell me if God didn't raise them up to hate the Received Text why did they express a hatered towards the Received Text? Also why did the revisionists take a vow of secrecy? The fact that this whole thing was done in secret, in a corner as it were, certainly leads me to believe that there was no true light in this undertaking.

I do know what you are getting at, about Hort saying he 'hated' the TR. That was written when he was a young, unknowledgeable man in his early 20's, I believe. Wetcott/Hort demanded that the Revised Version differ as little as possible from the KJ.

In his early twenties he detested the Received Text, and later in life he sought to replace it. Mission accomplished. Another battle won for the mother church.

People made new translations in the 18th and 19th centuries as well: Webster; Wesley; Darby; Julia-somebody. BTW, I am at work and am going SOLELY on memory, so please excuse any errata.)

All Bibles published before 1900 actually adhered to the Received Text only.

The Scriptures given were applicable then as well as today. No, I do not believe things are getting better!!! Just look at who is in the White House for proof positive. I believe that we could very well be living in the last times. But, no-one knows the day or the hour, like William Miller, Ellen G. White, Charles Taze Russell and Topping thought they did.

Then what makes you believe that all of these bible versions that have just sprung up over the last century are blessed and holy? Don't you know that the Word of God is never to be taken lightly?

I believe God gave us a riches in manuscripts. And some people do not understand King James, and that's that. I happen to prefer the Geneva Bile to King James. I think the NIV stinks---always have. I also think inclusive language translations are dead wrong, so ix-nay on the NRSV and its ilk. I think translations like the HCSB, ESV, and God's Word Translation, are a breath of fresh air. My reason for not preferring the KJV are based on comprehension and understandability; NOT the TR. I belueve the Byzantine-type manuscripts have a placce in the Church alongside the others. So, if you like and use KJV, hey, God bless you. But, don't fo saying the modern versions are not Bibles and that sort of garbage, because it simply is not true(other than the NWT, naturally).

The Authorized Bible is God's Final Word to humanity. I am not saying that it's perfectly flawless. I do believe that the Textus Receptus manuscripts are the only manuscripts that have maintained the purity of God's Words. So to have a pure Bible it has to be based solely on these manuscripts.

 

[Steve]

Certainly. Ask away. No, I do not believe God raised up men to ;hate' the received text. I believe that the 1611 translators were the best in their fields at that time. They wer not perfect(e.g., that Richard Whats-His-Name that stood drunk all the time---'never went to bed sober', they said. But, I digress...) and they recommended the use of other versions. (Preface to the Readers). I believe that the KJ was good in its own time. It is now waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of date in its syntax and English usage; that's why God has raised up other men to translate His LIVING word to the people of today.

Okay so that's what you believe. So tell me if God didn't raise them up to hate the Received Text why did they express a hatered towards the Received Text? Also why did the revisionists take a vow of secrecy? The fact that this whole thing was done in secret, in a corner as it were, certainly leads me to believe that there was no true light in this undertaking.

I do know what you are getting at, about Hort saying he 'hated' the TR. That was written when he was a young, unknowledgeable man in his early 20's, I believe. Wetcott/Hort demanded that the Revised Version differ as little as possible from the KJ.

In his early twenties he detested the Received Text, and later in life he sought to replace it. Mission accomplished. Another battle won for the mother church.

People made new translations in the 18th and 19th centuries as well: Webster; Wesley; Darby; Julia-somebody. BTW, I am at work and am going SOLELY on memory, so please excuse any errata.)

All Bibles published before 1900 actually adhered to the Received Text only.

The Scriptures given were applicable then as well as today. No, I do not believe things are getting better!!! Just look at who is in the White House for proof positive. I believe that we could very well be living in the last times. But, no-one knows the day or the hour, like William Miller, Ellen G. White, Charles Taze Russell and Topping thought they did.

Then what makes you believe that all of these bible versions that have just sprung up over the last century are blessed and holy? Don't you know that the Word of God is never to be taken lightly?

I believe God gave us a riches in manuscripts. And some people do not understand King James, and that's that. I happen to prefer the Geneva Bile to King James. I think the NIV stinks---always have. I also think inclusive language translations are dead wrong, so ix-nay on the NRSV and its ilk. I think translations like the HCSB, ESV, and God's Word Translation, are a breath of fresh air. My reason for not preferring the KJV are based on comprehension and understandability; NOT the TR. I belueve the Byzantine-type manuscripts have a placce in the Church alongside the others. So, if you like and use KJV, hey, God bless you. But, don't fo saying the modern versions are not Bibles and that sort of garbage, because it simply is not true(other than the NWT, naturally).

The Authorized Bible is God's Final Word to humanity. I am not saying that it's perfectly flawless. I do believe that the Textus Receptus manuscripts are the only manuscripts that have maintained the purity of God's Words. So to have a pure Bible it has to be based solely on these manuscripts.

Bottom line: I heartily disagree with you, and you disagree with me, as well. I am never going to use the KJV. I don't see the need for reading a 400 year old Anglican translation of the Bible that has 800 archaic terms in it. I wll (and do) use the NKJV, HCSB. GW, ESV, and will continue to do so. You use and benefit from the KJV. Continue on. You can support the KJV; I can support the new. To each his own. It is like two trains running parallel on two tracks. They wont meet. Same here. Blessings, S