IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE?

[ebia]

What Bible version do you think is the most accurate anyone?

Opps. I now what you are going to say.  I mean ones that are in english.

Define accurate.
Translated from the most authentic text?
Closest to the original words (which may make little sense to the current audience, given that idioms have changed)?
Closest to conveying the original meaning, even if that means using significantly different words and idioms?

Aucuracy of translation is a bit of a moving target - different translations are aiming at different things.   Most modern translations are based on similar greek texts, but have different aims, so it is a good idea if using a "paraphrase" translation like the Message or the Good News for ease of reading and understanding, to compare to a more word-for-word translation like the NRSV when closely studying the text.  The NIV is something of a compromise between the two camps, so is a decent "all-rounder" rather than a master of either.

Single-author translations, particularly, can give fresh insight into a passage (especially the "Luke for Everyone", "Matthew for Everyone", etc series by Tom Wright), but you have to bear in mind that ultimately they represents single person's view of how to translate a difficult to translate passage, rather than a consensus.

[Petro]

As I said before when you have the cults, agreeing with a translation, then christians should take notice, because it usually means something is not right in the translation if it agrees with their version of the scriptures and their teaching.

This is still a pathetic argument, but just to demonstrate how pathetic.

1.  JW's do not like the NIV - they prefer it to some others, but they still prefer their own translation because the NIV still contains the foundation of much doctrine that contradicts JW teachings (eg the beginning of the Gospel according to St John).

2.  If the fact that a cult or heretical group uses your translation is damning evidence, then the King James Only crowd are in big trouble, because the Mormon's insist on using that version.

Other than that, I think Allinall summed it up pretty well.

ebia,

Whats pathetic, is your presumpotion like Tibby's, to my claiming the JW's like the NIV, translation, I was refering to the Wescott & Hort Transalation of 1881.

And the point that I brought up, was based on your comment that the KJV, was not the first english translation, my point that went over your head was that Wycliffes and Tyndales, practically make up the entire KJV by themselves., which proves both of these men, were moved of the Spirit of God to translate wjhat they did, and it was confirmed by the Committee appointed by King James.

And for your statement the the NIV contradicts cults teachings, you fail to see, it also agrees with theirs, especially in the areas which deny the diety of Christ, by ommission of words, found in the original text.

Petro

[asaph]

IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE?

Yes.

Love each other.

Did I say that right? Are those words of the Devil? I did not quote any Bible (that I know of) yet the Holy Spirit can and does use those words, because the Spirit is Truth. I remember hearing people at parties use the name of Jesus as a cuss word. His name convicted me because the Spirit of Truth was there working in my heart. I wonder, which version did they quote from? All they said was Jesus Christ and I was convicted about my sins. The Spirit still leads into all Truth because He is Truth.

God Loves Ya,

asaph

[Allinall]

And the point that I brought up, was based on your comment that the KJV, was not the first english translation, my point that went over your head was that Wycliffes and Tyndales, practically make up the entire KJV by themselves., which proves both of these men, were moved of the Spirit of God to translate wjhat they did, and it was confirmed by the Committee appointed by King James.

What scriptural support do you have for the underlined portion of your statement?  I ask only because I believe the answer you may give may shed light on your position.

And for your statement the the NIV contradicts cults teachings, you fail to see, it also agrees with theirs, especially in the areas which deny the diety of Christ, by ommission of words, found in the original text.

What verses, by omission of words, deny the deity of Christ?  Please list them, or quote them, whichever works best for you.

[Allinall]

IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE?

Yes.

Love each other.

Did I say that right? Are those words of the Devil? I did not quote any Bible (that I know of) yet the Holy Spirit can and does use those words, because the Spirit is Truth. I remember hearing people at parties use the name of Jesus as a cuss word. His name convicted me because the Spirit of Truth was there working in my heart. I wonder, which version did they quote from? All they said was Jesus Christ and I was convicted about my sins. The Spirit still leads into all Truth because He is Truth.

God Loves Ya,

asaph

Well said and true.  Thank you!  

[ebia]

And the point that I brought up, was based on your comment that the KJV, was not the first english translation, my point that went over your head was that Wycliffes and Tyndales, practically make up the entire KJV by themselves., which proves both of these men, were moved of the Spirit of God to translate wjhat they did, and it was confirmed by the Committee appointed by King James.

What scriptural support do you have for the underlined portion of your statement?  I ask only because I believe the answer you may give may shed light on your position.

I hope so, because I still don't understand what his position is.

And for your statement the the NIV contradicts cults teachings, you fail to see, it also agrees with theirs, especially in the areas which deny the diety of Christ, by ommission of words, found in the original text.

What verses, by omission of words, deny the deity of Christ?  Please list them, or quote them, whichever works best for you.

And please be quite clear about what exactly you are taking as "the original text".

Whats pathetic, is your presumpotion like Tibby's, to my claiming the JW's like the NIV, translation, I was refering to the Wescott & Hort Transalation of 1881.

Apologies if I misinterpreted what you said.  The reason may be that you, and others, keep referring to the "Westcott & Hort Translation".  in 1881 Westcott and Hort put together what they considered to be the best original Greek text.  They didn't translate anything, so calling it a translation is confusing.

Never the less, my point still stands that the fact that certain cults prefer one version over another does not offer evidence as to which is the more correct version.

[Petro]

And the point that I brought up, was based on your comment that the KJV, was not the first english translation, my point that went over your head was that Wycliffes and Tyndales, practically make up the entire KJV by themselves., which proves both of these men, were moved of the Spirit of God to translate wjhat they did, and it was confirmed by the Committee appointed by King James.

What scriptural support do you have for the underlined portion of your statement?  I ask only because I believe the answer you may give may shed light on your position.

And for your statement the the NIV contradicts cults teachings, you fail to see, it also agrees with theirs, especially in the areas which deny the diety of Christ, by ommission of words, found in the original text.

What verses, by omission of words, deny the deity of Christ?  Please list them, or quote them, whichever works best for you.

Allinall,

You can back track to my reply#7, and check the website I provided, but above all else, spend time in learning the historical record of both Wycliffe, and Tyndale and the record of their translations.

It makes no never mind, who you studied under, no person has the corner on the truth, but history can prove or disprove, what you ahave been taught.

The fact is, the NIV, has ommited words or tweecked it enough in certain verses, to make quite a difference to the verses meaning,

I say look at the Comparison Table of Bible verses, provided.

I have never heard of the person, you studied under, just like you probaly have never heard of the bible translation experts the JW's put forth to justify their translation.

And even the history put forth by sides distort the truth, but, discerning individuals can cull it, by carefull consideration of it, by the Spirt.


Blessings,

Petro

[Ambassador4Christ]

And the point that I brought up, was based on your comment that the KJV, was not the first english translation, my point that went over your head was that Wycliffes and Tyndales, practically make up the entire KJV by themselves., which proves both of these men, were moved of the Spirit of God to translate wjhat they did, and it was confirmed by the Committee appointed by King James.

What scriptural support do you have for the underlined portion of your statement?  I ask only because I believe the answer you may give may shed light on your position.

And for your statement the the NIV contradicts cults teachings, you fail to see, it also agrees with theirs, especially in the areas which deny the diety of Christ, by ommission of words, found in the original text.

What verses, by omission of words, deny the deity of Christ?  Please list them, or quote them, whichever works best for you.

Allinall,

You can back track to my reply#7, and check the website I provided, but above all else, spend time in learning the historical record of both Wycliffe, and Tyndale and the record of their translations.

It makes no never mind, who you studied under, no person has the corner on the truth, but history can prove or disprove, what you ahave been taught.

The fact is, the NIV, has ommited words or tweecked it enough in certain verses, to make quite a difference to the verses meaning,

I say look at the Comparison Table of Bible verses, provided.

I have never heard of the person, you studied under, just like you probaly have never heard of the bible translation experts the JW's put forth to justify their translation.

And even the history put forth by sides distort the truth, but, discerning individuals can cull it, by carefull consideration of it, by the Spirt.


Blessings,

Petro

Amen Petro Amen

[ebia]

And the point that I brought up, was based on your comment that the KJV, was not the first english translation, my point that went over your head was that Wycliffes and Tyndales, practically make up the entire KJV by themselves., which proves both of these men, were moved of the Spirit of God to translate wjhat they did, and it was confirmed by the Committee appointed by King James.

What scriptural support do you have for the underlined portion of your statement?  I ask only because I believe the answer you may give may shed light on your position.

And for your statement the the NIV contradicts cults teachings, you fail to see, it also agrees with theirs, especially in the areas which deny the diety of Christ, by ommission of words, found in the original text.

What verses, by omission of words, deny the deity of Christ?  Please list them, or quote them, whichever works best for you.

Allinall,

You can back track to my reply#7, and check the website I provided, but above all else, spend time in learning the historical record of both Wycliffe, and Tyndale and the record of their translations.

It makes no never mind, who you studied under, no person has the corner on the truth, but history can prove or disprove, what you ahave been taught.

The fact is, the NIV, has ommited words or tweecked it enough in certain verses, to make quite a difference to the verses meaning,

I say look at the Comparison Table of Bible verses, provided.

I have never heard of the person, you studied under, just like you probaly have never heard of the bible translation experts the JW's put forth to justify their translation.

And even the history put forth by sides distort the truth, but, discerning individuals can cull it, by carefull consideration of it, by the Spirt.


Blessings,

Petro

Do you plan to do any of the following:
1.  Bother to explain what your point about Tyndale & Wycliffe is.
2.  Address any of the issues raised by other people?
3.  Acknowledge that, no matter how many differences you can find between the NIV and the AV, that cannot prove which (if either) is more accurate.
4.  Acknowledge that the use of a particular translation by one or more cults or heretical groups does prove that translation to be flawed.  (If it did, the AV would be in big trouble, as it is used by the biggest such group, the Mormons).
5.  Put your commas in the correct place in sentences, so other people can understand what you are trying to say.

[Saved_4ever]

Acknowledge that the use of a particular translation by one or more cults or heretical groups does prove that translation to be flawed.  (If it did, the AV would be in big trouble, as it is used by the biggest such group, the Mormons).

Actually the Mormons have to use an extra book to declare their beliefs.  Without it they have no case for their beliefs.  You see, if they just stuck to the bible, they wouldn't have so many silly extra beliefs.

[ebia]

Quote:
Acknowledge that the use of a particular translation by one or more cults or heretical groups does prove that translation to be flawed.  (If it did, the AV would be in big trouble, as it is used by the biggest such group, the Mormons).
 

Actually the Mormons have to use an extra book to declare their beliefs.  Without it they have no case for their beliefs.  You see, if they just stuck to the bible, they wouldn't have so many silly extra beliefs.

I know, and I agree, but it doesn't nullify my point.

[Petro]

And the point that I brought up, was based on your comment that the KJV, was not the first english translation, my point that went over your head was that Wycliffes and Tyndales, practically make up the entire KJV by themselves., which proves both of these men, were moved of the Spirit of God to translate wjhat they did, and it was confirmed by the Committee appointed by King James.

What scriptural support do you have for the underlined portion of your statement?  I ask only because I believe the answer you may give may shed light on your position.

And for your statement the the NIV contradicts cults teachings, you fail to see, it also agrees with theirs, especially in the areas which deny the diety of Christ, by ommission of words, found in the original text.

What verses, by omission of words, deny the deity of Christ?  Please list them, or quote them, whichever works best for you.

Allinall,

You can back track to my reply#7, and check the website I provided, but above all else, spend time in learning the historical record of both Wycliffe, and Tyndale and the record of their translations.

It makes no never mind, who you studied under, no person has the corner on the truth, but history can prove or disprove, what you ahave been taught.

The fact is, the NIV, has ommited words or tweecked it enough in certain verses, to make quite a difference to the verses meaning,

I say look at the Comparison Table of Bible verses, provided.

I have never heard of the person, you studied under, just like you probaly have never heard of the bible translation experts the JW's put forth to justify their translation.

And even the history put forth by sides distort the truth, but, discerning individuals can cull it, by carefull consideration of it, by the Spirt.


Blessings,

Petro

Do you plan to do any of the following:
1.  Bother to explain what your point about Tyndale & Wycliffe is.
2.  Address any of the issues raised by other people?
3.  Acknowledge that, no matter how many differences you can find between the NIV and the AV, that cannot prove which (if either) is more accurate.
4.  Acknowledge that the use of a particular translation by one or more cults or heretical groups does prove that translation to be flawed.  (If it did, the AV would be in big trouble, as it is used by the biggest such group, the Mormons).
5.  Put your commas in the correct place in sentences, so other people can understand what you are trying to say.

ebia,

What, you want me to teach you everything??

The answer is no, to all of the above..

Petro

[Petro]

ebia,

In answer to your questions.

posted by ebia
1.  Bother to explain what your point about Tyndale & Wycliffe is.

I made my point twice, I say re read my answers..

2.  Address any of the issues raised by other people?

What  are they??

3.  Acknowledge that, no matter how many differences you can find between the NIV and the AV, that cannot prove which (if either) is more accurate.

Wrong...changing the words as the NIV, has done, changes the context, which then becomes a pre text.

4.  Acknowledge that the use of a particular translation by one or more cults or heretical groups does prove that translation to be flawed.

Well here is a preview;

We know there is only 1 God. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord" (De. 6:4).

Now, turn to Daniel 3:25. In this verse, Shadrach, Messach and Abednego have been thrown into the fiery furnace.

However, they are not alone. Another one (a fourth) is there to help them.

Look at this verse in a the NIV.

Suffice it to say that, at the end of Daniel 3:25, the NIVersion has a reading similar to the following:

   "... and the fourth looks like a son of the gods..."  
   A son of the gods?!  

(ebia, you see, anything wrong with this verse??)

There is only 1 God! (How about Isa 44:6)

Look at this same verse in your King James Bible. The Authorized (KJV) Bible says:

"... and the form of the fourth is like The Son of God"

Reffering of course to, The Lord Jesus Christ.

It was Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, who was with Shadrach, Messach and Abednego. Jesus protected them from the fiery furnace; and it's Jesus who will protect you and me from the fiery furnace (hell).

Now, who would think there is more than 1 God?  Well, Satan does. Remember what he said to Eve in Genesis 3:5 ?

   "... ye shall be as gods ..."!

Satan believes there is more than 1 God just as he believes that HE is EQUAL to God.

(If it did, the AV would be in big trouble, as it is used by the biggest such group, the Mormons).

This is a dumb conclusion, the mormons can no more prove their doctrines, than the JW's could before they came out with their own translation, that is why, they use the "Book of Mormon", as their principle book to teach them, in effect they have elevated "The Book of Mormon" above the Bible and use the bible  only as a reference text.


Here are some more verses for you, since you are to lazy to go to the Comprison Table I posted;

 http://www.angelfire.com/wa/jasonsaling/images/textbox1.gif

Petro

[Petro]

ebia,

you said;

 Apologies if I misinterpreted what you said.  The reason may be that you, and others, keep referring to the "Westcott & Hort Translation".  in 1881 Westcott and Hort put together what they considered to be the best original Greek text.  They didn't translate anything, so calling it a translation is confusing.

It doesn't matter what you think they did or didn't do, they call their work a translation, where do you think the verse in the NIV, came from, it wasn't from the AV.

You need to familiarize yourself with the historical facts, before you start posting, stuff like this..

I will help you;  here is a website on the history of the NIV, and where i came from.

I post it as sson as I can.





Petro

[ebia]

Quote:
posted by ebia
1.  Bother to explain what your point about Tyndale & Wycliffe is.
 
I made my point twice, I say re read my answers..

I've read them several times - they may make perfect sense to you, but to someone who doesn't know what you are talking about, they make no sense whatsoever.

2.  Like answering the above.
Like acknowledging that Westcott & Hort produced a greek text, not a translation.
Like acknowledging that the Erasmus was a Catholic, so the fact that W & H were Anglicans is no different.
Most importantly, acknowledging that demostrating differences between the NIV and AV doesn't prove that the NIV changed anything, any more than it proves that the authours of the AV changed the same verse.

3.  "... and the fourth looks like a son of the gods..."   is quoting Nebuchadnezzar.  A man who does believe (incorrectly) that there is more than one God.

This is a dumb conclusion, the mormons can no more prove their doctrines, than the JW's could before they came out with their own translation, that is why, they use the "Book of Mormon", as their principle book to teach them, in effect they have elevated "The Book of Mormon" above the Bible and use the bible  only as a reference text

 Exactly.
The fact that the Mormons like the AV doesn't prove that it is rubbish.   The fact that the JWs like the NIV or the Westcott & Hort text does not prove that they are rubbish.  Now can we please leave the Mormons, the JWs and all the other non-Trinitarians out of the discussion.

Here are some more verses for you, since you are to lazy to go to the Comprison Table I posted;

  http://www.angelfire.com/wa/jasonsaling/images/textbox1.gif

I'm not too lazy to look at it.  I've looked at stuff like this plenty of times before.  You can quote differences until you are blue in the face.   Spotting a difference does not prove which is correct.

Now lets try and get something quite clear.  Which of the following are you asserting:
1.  The translators of the NIV deliberately made unsupportable changes in translating from the Greek Text they were using into English.

2.  The translators of the NIV accidentally made unsupportable changes in translating from the Greek Text they were using into English.

3.  The translators of the NIV deliberately used an inappropriate choice of Greek texts.

4.   The translators of the NIV based their Greek text on Westcott & Hort and others in good faith, but W & H deliberately produced a corrupt text.

5.   The translators of the NIV based their Greek text on Westcott & Hort and others in good faith, but W & H accidentally produced a corrupt text.

6.   God is an Englishman and wanted us to all read the bible in 16th Century English all along, writing it in Greek and Hebrew was a mistake in first place, and any translation that doesn't use the exact words of the AV is clearly the work of satan.