IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE?

[Shammu]

BUMP

[Allinall]

2Ti 3:16 All (3956) scripture (1124) [is] given by inspiration of God (2315), and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof (1650), for  correction, for instruction in righteousness 1343:[/i]

There are some key words here to consider when translating a passage:

All 3956 -

1) individually

a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2) collectively

a) some of all types

I agree with the translation of all in this case.  All[/b] scripture is given by inspiration of God...

Scripture - 1124 -

1) a writing, thing written

2) the Scripture, used to denote either the book itself, or its contents

3) a certain portion or section of the Holy Scripture

I also agree with this translation.  This is the words, the sentences, punctuation and meaning of those grammatical constructions.  All Scripture[/b] is given by inspiration of God...

Given by inspiration of God - 2315 - theopneustos

According to Strong's this means inspired by God.  The word Theos, translating as God and the derivative root of pneo, translating to breathe do not translate accurately "given by inspiration of God."  Rather, the text properly translates "God breathed."  This is important.  Why?  Because if not, we then can take it to  mean that it is the men who were inspired, and not the word.  Take the text folks.  It's the words, not the men that were inspired in this regard.

But, what of...

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy (4394) came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved (5342) by (5259) the Holy Ghost.[/i]

Again, some key words:

Prophecy - 4394 -

1) prophecy

a) a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; esp. by foretelling future events

There are other definitions, but not ones that fit with this passage contextually.  I agree with this translation.  A prophecy.  A God inspired declaration of His purposes.  Usually, not to be picky, but God's spoken word.  Words...breathed out.    

Moved - 5342 -

1) to carry

a) to carry some burden

1) to bear with one's self

b) to move by bearing; move or, to be conveyed or borne, with the suggestion of force or speed

1) of persons borne in a ship over the sea

2) of a gust of wind, to rush

3) of the mind, to be moved inwardly, prompted


c) to bear up i.e. uphold (keep from falling)

1) of Christ, the preserver of the universe

2) to bear, i.e. endure, to endure the rigour of a thing, to bear patiently one's conduct, or spare one (abstain from punishing or destroying)

3) to bring, bring to, bring forward

a) to move to, apply

b) to bring in by announcing, to announce

c) to bear i.e. bring forth, produce; to bring forward in a speech

d) to lead, conduct

To be moved, by whatever means to action.

Here's my problem with stating that the writers were inspired: it doesn't say that.  It says that the scriptures were God-breathed, and the men were moved.  Doesn't say that the men were God-breathed to do this.  They were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak the God-breathed words He purposed for them to speak.

I did all that to make a very simple point!    If God then didn't inspire the men, but rather the words in the original, why did He decide to inspire the men, and not the words of the translation?  And if He chose to inspire the translated words as He did His first, what verse can be used to claim thusly?  The concept simply doesn't contextually fit with God's Word.

[Marv]

Allinall,

A good point.

I would like to add one other.

If the KJV was inspired (God-breathed) then why would the traslators have needed any other writings?  They could have written God's message to the English speaking people without consulting the Greek text, or the Latin Vulgate, or Martin Luther's German translation, or Tyndale's, or the Bishop's Bible which they were supposed to retain the wording of when possible.

The answer of course, is they wouldn't have needed those other writings.  There would be no need to translate since God's inspiration would have assured agreement.

Sometimes people will use the word inspired for when someone does something very well.  Like Wilt Chamberlain's individual high scoring basketball game.  I could agree that the KJV was inspired in that sense, but the KJV only people do indeed seem to use the word inspired in the God breathed sense, and that is just incorrect.

Marv

[Reba]

YUP

[Brother Love]

YUP

NOPE!!!

[Marv]

Brother Love,

It seems you, and others here as well are still clinging to the idea that the KJV is God-breathed.

Then please answer this,
Why in Revelation 22:19 is the proper wording the wording of the KJV where it talks about the book of life and not the tree of life as other translations render it.  (Translations not based on the KJV or the Textus Receptus)

KJV Rev 22:19  And if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which have been written in this Book.

Eramus' text for Revelation was the basis for the book of life rendering in the Textus Receptus.  When his work came out, he only had one manuscript with Revelations, and some of Revelations such as the last 6 verses weren't even in that manuscript.

So he back translated from a Latin manuscript.

The Latin words for book and tree are similar so a relatively easy mistake to make especially since the book of life is referred to in other well known verses.  The Greek words are very different so it would be an unlikely error in Greek.  The original Vulgate had tree(ligno) not book(libro) 19et si quis deminuerit de verbis libri prophetiae huius auferet Deus partem eius de ligno vitae et de civitate sancta et de his quae scripta sunt in libro isto , but the Latin manuscript he had had an mistaken libro for the bold faced word ligno.

When you study Greek manuscripts, there is no support for the word book even the majority text has tree, so the Textus Receptus, which is really based on no Greek at all at this place in the Bible stands alone.  It is a case not of some evidence against some evidence but of no evidence against all evidence.

So why should we accept the word based on a mistake in a Latin Manuscript and reject the word found in the Greek manuscripts, including the Majority text, not to mention the original Vulgate?

Marv

[joelkaki]

From the preface to the original 1611 King James Bible:

"Therefore, as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margins, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

This was part of the original KJV.  The translators of the KJV said that variety in translation was good.  If the KJV translators were indeed inspired, then this part is inspired, which means that there should be variety in translation.  If this part is not inspired, then it is not necessary that the KJV as a translation is inspired.  

A marginal note at Luke 17:36 in the original 1611 KJV says, "This verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies."

[edited to add]If the translators themselves did acknowledged that part of what they put in there was not accurate, then obviously the text of the KJV is not inspired.  I personally would argue that not only is it not the only valid translation, but also that it is not the best translation, and is inferior to others in matters of text.[end of edit]

Inspired KJV?  KJV translation only right translation?

I think not.  

Joel

[Brother Love]

From the preface to the original 1611 King James Bible:

"Therefore, as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margins, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

This was part of the original KJV.  The translators of the KJV said that variety in translation was good.  If the KJV translators were indeed inspired, then this part is inspired, which means that there should be variety in translation.  If this part is not inspired, then it is not necessary the the KJV as a translation is inspired.  

A marginal note at Luke 17:36 in the original 1611 KJV says, "This verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies."

Inspired KJV?  KJV translation only right translation?

I think not.  

Joel

Its about time Joel (Your starting to think) Joel do you have Eternal Life (OSAS)?

[joelkaki]

Its about time Joel (Your starting to think) Joel do you have Eternal Life (OSAS)?

I'm not sure what you are getting at.  Yes I have eternal life, and I believe in the Perseverance of the Saints.  

I find it interesting, though, that you did not answer my argument, nor did you answer my previous argument in this thread.  

Joel

[Allinall]

Its about time Joel (Your starting to think) Joel do you have Eternal Life (OSAS)?

I'm not sure what you are getting at.  Yes I have eternal life, and I believe in the Perseverance of the Saints.  

I find it interesting, though, that you did not answer my argument, nor did you answer my previous argument in this thread.  

Joel

He won't...

[Brother Love]

Its about time Joel (Your starting to think) Joel do you have Eternal Life (OSAS)?

I'm not sure what you are getting at.  Yes I have eternal life, and I believe in the Perseverance of the Saints.  

I find it interesting, though, that you did not answer my argument, nor did you answer my previous argument in this thread.  

Joel

He won't...

  Your my favorite

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

Reference the KJV, I will simply say that hosts of scholars over many generations have confirmed the reason why the Old King James Version of the Holy Bible has served us faithfully and well.

The work of scholars on more recent translations indicates the opposite. That does not mean they don't have value, but it does mean the newer versions are not nearly as accurate. I won't mention the newer versions that I'm thinking about, but I will say that some of the new versions water down and pervert the Holy Bible.

I, for one, am not interested in watered down or perverted texts. I would also say that I have no interest in politically correct or gender neutral texts that appear to serve man, not God. I think that it would be completely true to say that some of the newer translations are pretty accurate and faithful to God's Word, but there are still some pretty serious errors in most of them.

I, for one, am not really that interested in modern language. To take it one step further, I would be completely against modern meanings, corruption, and perversion in many translations. I think that many of the worst translations do not serve God at all.

What errors there are in the KJV are few, not many. It's also important to note that we still have the ancient texts. One can use the KJV in conjunction with Strong's Numbers, Zodiates, and many other outstanding language helps to see just how accurate the KJV is. One can also do side by side comparisons between the ancient texts and the KJV to easily confirm that the KJV is a scholarly masterpiece. The translators of the KJV didn't claim they were inspired by God, but it is pretty evident their large degree of accuracy was not an accident.

I use several translations during some Bible studies, but my primary text is the old KJV. I don't say "KJV ONLY", but I do say "KJV BEST". I have no interest at all in trying to insult someone who uses a different translation. I know there are varying degrees of accuracy, and some newer translations would be pretty good. However, many of the newer translations fall in the category of horrible to bad.

I certainly don't think Christians should divide over this issue or become angry with each other.

Love In Christ,
Tom

[Brother Love]

From the preface to the original 1611 King James Bible:

"Therefore, as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margins, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

This was part of the original KJV.  The translators of the KJV said that variety in translation was good.  If the KJV translators were indeed inspired, then this part is inspired, which means that there should be variety in translation.  If this part is not inspired, then it is not necessary that the KJV as a translation is inspired.  

A marginal note at Luke 17:36 in the original 1611 KJV says, "This verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies."

[edited to add]If the translators themselves did acknowledged that part of what they put in there was not accurate, then obviously the text of the KJV is not inspired.  I personally would argue that not only is it not the only valid translation, but also that it is not the best translation, and is inferior to others in matters of text.[end of edit]

Inspired KJV?  KJV translation only right translation?

I think not.  

Joel

Let me in on it Joel, what are you trying to say?

[Brother Love]

Brothers and Sisters,

Reference the KJV, I will simply say that hosts of scholars over many generations have confirmed the reason why the Old King James Version of the Holy Bible has served us faithfully and well.

The work of scholars on more recent translations indicates the opposite. That does not mean they don't have value, but it does mean the newer versions are not nearly as accurate. I won't mention the newer versions that I'm thinking about, but I will say that some of the new versions water down and pervert the Holy Bible.

I, for one, am not interested in watered down or perverted texts. I would also say that I have no interest in politically correct or gender neutral texts that appear to serve man, not God. I think that it would be completely true to say that some of the newer translations are pretty accurate and faithful to God's Word, but there are still some pretty serious errors in most of them.

I, for one, am not really that interested in modern language. To take it one step further, I would be completely against modern meanings, corruption, and perversion in many translations. I think that many of the worst translations do not serve God at all.

What errors there are in the KJV are few, not many. It's also important to note that we still have the ancient texts. One can use the KJV in conjunction with Strong's Numbers, Zodiates, and many other outstanding language helps to see just how accurate the KJV is. One can also do side by side comparisons between the ancient texts and the KJV to easily confirm that the KJV is a scholarly masterpiece. The translators of the KJV didn't claim they were inspired by God, but it is pretty evident their large degree of accuracy was not an accident.

I use several translations during some Bible studies, but my primary text is the old KJV. I don't say "KJV ONLY", but I do say "KJV BEST". I have no interest at all in trying to insult someone who uses a different translation. I know there are varying degrees of accuracy, and some newer translations would be pretty good. However, many of the newer translations fall in the category of horrible to bad.

I certainly don't think Christians should divide over this issue or become angry with each other.

Love In Christ,
Tom

AMEN!!!

[joelkaki]

Let me in on it Joel, what are you trying to say?

I'm saying that the KJV itself proves that it is not the Only translation we should use as Christians.  

And I don't believe the KJV is even the best.  The Textus Receptus is simply not as accurate (partially because at the time it was compiled, there were not as many manuscripts available from which to translate as there are today) as the Critical Text.  

I would agree that some modern "translations" should be avoided.  But that doesn't mean they all should.  Some are better than the KJV in many ways.  And trying to stick to the old English words in a world where no one speaks like that doesn't make sense.  

Joel