IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE?

[Sower]

have nothing against the KJV but someone has pointed out that there have been older manuscripts then the ones used to make the kjv that have been discovered such as in the DSS.  To overlook this i think is just well one sided.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have not been overlooked in establishing the value of the KJV and it's underlying texts -- in particular the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

As a matter of fact, THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS ARE OVERWHELMING PROOF OF THE FAITHFUL PRESERVATION OF THE HEBREW OT over a period of more than 3,500 years!

Before the DSS were discovered, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts dated from about 900 A.D. Then they discovered a scroll of Isaiah among the DSS which dated from about 100 B.C. So a difference of 1,000 years separated these two texts. Did that make a difference?  Absolutely not. Isaiah in the Masoretic Text matched Isaiah from the DSS, except for some very minor and minute variances.

This is a testimony to the overshadowing hand of God over His Word. The Hebrew scribes were so utterly meticulous and careful about transcribing, that what Moses wrote is literally what Christ read in the synagogue at Nazareth 1500 years later. And what we read today is also what Moses wrote, because the KJV translators were scrupulous to a fault. They did their utmost to preserve the words and the spirit of the original, since they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

It would be erroneous to call the KJV "inspired", since only the original autographs were inspired. But if we want to be certain and confident that we are reading the uncorrupted Word of God, then we cannot fail with the KJV [or it's equivalent in other languages]. The same can only be said for the Reformation Bibles, not modern versions after 1881.

[nChrist]

Brother Sower,

I think that "witness" is an excellent term to use when talking about ancient manuscripts. It is also important to note that the witnesses talked in the ancient times and many of them were scholars. There is a very logical reason why many ancient manuscripts were not included in the Holy Bible. Many witnesses knew the writers and spoke as actual witnesses. The use of the term "witness" is an interesting comparison if you use it in a court setting and consider the value of each witness. The testimony of some "witnesses" in a court of law have little or no value. In fact, some testimony in court is not relevant, and some testimony is false.

Brother, I would simply say that I'm not a scholar, and I'm glad that I don't have to make all of those decisions. I can't cross examine the witnesses, and I don't know many of the witnesses. For the above reasons, I choose the KJV as my primary Bible for study. I also make a distinction between the Old KJV and the new. I simply don't want to worry about distortions and omissions. I really don't know how good the other two translations are that I use from time to time: The Amplified Bible and Young's Literal Translation. However, I don't have to worry about it. I don't use them that often, and I use them in parallel with the KJV and KJV with Strong's numbers.

Brother, please give me your opinion of The Amplified Bible and Young's Literal Translation. I don't use them very often, but I would appreciate you sharing with me.

Love In Christ,
Tom

[Sower]

Brother, please give me your opinion of The Amplified Bible and Young's Literal Translation. I don't use them very often, but I would appreciate you sharing with me.

Brother Tom:

The Amplified New Testament, by it's own admission is at odds with the KJV: "The Greek Text of Westcott and Hort was pursued with meticulous care", and unfortunately, that text was based on the corrupt manuscripts.


Young's Literal Translation parallels the KJV, but, by it's own admission, is not to be regarded as a substitute but a study help:

"...The following translation need not, and ought not, to be considered, in any sense, as coming into competition with the Common Version, but as one to be used in connection with it, and as auxiliary to it; and not a few assurances have been received from clergymen and others that they thus use it, and find it at once interesting and profitable. The change of a single word, or collocation of words, is often found to throw an entirely new shade of meaning over the Scripture. This advantage is well known to all who have compared the various ancient versions, or even the English versions that successively formed what was popularly called "the authorized version," i.e., Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops, &c.

The Greek Text followed is that generally recognized as the "Received Text," not because it is thought perfect, but because the department of Translation is quite distinct from that of Textual Criticism, and few are qualified for both. If the original text be altered by a translator, (except he give his reasons for and against each emendation,) the reader is left in uncertainty whether the translation given is to be considered as that of the old or of the new reading. And, after all, the differences in sense to be found in the 100,000 various Greek readings are so trifling compared with those to be derived from an exact translation of the Received Text, that the writer willingly leaves them to other hands; at the same time, it is contemplated, in a future edition, to give, in an Appendix, all the various readings of the Greek MSS. that are capable of being expressed in English...."

[Gracey]

Re:IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE?

...some things never change.

The word of God is. Ask Him.

peace
Gracey

[Kristi Ann]

Re:IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE?

...some things never change.

The word of God is. Ask Him.

peace
Gracey

AMEN Gracey!!


Hey sweetie it's Very Nice to see you back Sister!  Where have ya been, what are ya up too?

Love ya Sis,  \o/

[nChrist]

Sower,

Thanks Brother, I really appreciate the information. I was thinking that would be the case.  I really don't need them anyway since nearly all of my study aids are geared to the old KJV and Strong's Numbers. I also have an extensive work from Dr. Zodiates (SP) that is geared to the old KJV. Some complain about the old style English used in the KJV, but I would quickly state that language is beautiful, at least for me. It appears to have a flowing rhythm, much like poetry in many portions.

I have numerous ancient language translations, but I don't really enjoy ancient languages unless I have a specific need for them in my studies. They involve a lot of work, so maybe I'm just lazy.  

Love In Christ,
Tom

[JudgeNot]

Quote:
Re:IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE?  
 
...some things never change.

The word of God is. Ask Him.

peace
Gracey

Amen Gracey.

God said it.  I believe it.  Through The Spirit we discern.    
 

[Allinall]

Sower,

Thanks Brother, I really appreciate the information. I was thinking that would be the case.  I really don't need them anyway since nearly all of my study aids are geared to the old KJV and Strong's Numbers. I also have an extensive work from Dr. Zodiates (SP) that is geared to the old KJV. Some complain about the old style English used in the KJV, but I would quickly state that language is beautiful, at least for me. It appears to have a flowing rhythm, much like poetry in many portions.

I have numerous ancient language translations, but I don't really enjoy ancient languages unless I have a specific need for them in my studies. They involve a lot of work, so maybe I'm just lazy.  

Love In Christ,
Tom

I've got the same one Brother!  I have the New Testament with Strongs + his notes + the extra book of his notes on each word and the Old Testament with Strongs and his notes.  Catch all that?   Pretty helpful really.

[nChrist]

Allinall Said:

I've got the same one Brother!  I have the New Testament with Strongs + his notes + the extra book of his notes on each word and the Old Testament with Strongs and his notes.  Catch all that?   Pretty helpful really.

   Yes Brother, I did catch all of that. Did I mention that I can put mine in however large a font that I wish?    I do like using Strong's, and my software is gentle on old folks, the bifocal crowd.  I use large fonts in all of my Bible studies. UM?? - Maybe it's time to get a new pair of bifocals. I did it with books for many years, but the adjustable settings on my computer have spoiled me.

Love In Christ,
Tom

[Evangelist]

Is my bible the right one?

Hmmmm. Not sure.

I've got a 1917 Scofield, a '65 Scofield, a Ryrie, an 1870 Blue Letter (my Grammaw's), a '70 Zondervan Marked Reference (KJV), a Parallel (KJV, NAS, NIV, AMP), a '32 Stephanus TR, two Strong's Complete (one veerrryyy old, one fairly new), Vine's, a complete set of Henry's Commentaries, and a few others.

It's almost amazing, though....seem's that when I read them all, and do a side by side on the essentials, they all say the same thing.

God is.
Man ain't.
God loves.
Man doesn't.
Jesus Saves.
Man can't do doodly.
If man don't believe, he's toast.
If man do believe, he's apple pie in the sky!

 

[sincereheart]

God is.
Man ain't.
God loves.
Man doesn't.
Jesus Saves.
Man can't do doodly.
If man don't believe, he's toast.
If man do believe, he's apple pie in the sky!


Now THAT is some good preachin'!  

[Reba]

If  anyone thinks Scofield is credible  witness for the truth of Scripture they are  hurten.

[Evangelist]

If  anyone thinks Scofield is credible  witness for the truth of Scripture they are  hurten.

After getting rear-ended yesterday on the way home, I woke up this morning with some aches and pains....yes, I'm "hurten" a little.  

On the other hand, I don't think I mentioned anything about relying on Scofield as a credible witness....only that  a couple of bibles were his editions (although, only the notes are his....the words belong to God, as delivered in the KJV).  

I imagine that Dr. Scofield is just as good, or bad, or mediocre, or illuminating, as any of the other so-called scholars that abound. Besides, I'd rather read Scofields comments than, say, Kirby, or Crosson.....at least Scofield believes in Jesus.  

[musicllover]

Is my bible the right one?

God is.
Man ain't.
God loves.
Man doesn't.
Jesus Saves.
Man can't do doodly.
If man don't believe, he's toast.
If man do believe, he's apple pie in the sky!

 

HEY, a sermon in a minute or less.......got anymore of these
My kids might acctualy hear these.
musicllover

[nChrist]

Evangelist Said:

God is.
Man ain't.
God loves.
Man doesn't.
Jesus Saves.
Man can't do doodly.
If man don't believe, he's toast.
If man do believe, he's apple pie in the sky!

Brother, you are sounding more and more like a good, old-fashioned country preacher that folks in my neck of the woods would latch onto and keep. However, your grammar is far too refined.    Have I thanked you recently for your web site?  If not, THANKS!. I have received a blessing there and many ideas for my personal Bible study. I'll hire an English teacher to help you with your grammar. Her name is "Bubba Sue".  

Love In Christ,
Tom