IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE?

[Petro]

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.

ebia,

Here the website;  I say look at  it and argue with it..  there are links to others and if you are not satisfied, you can look, others up on your own.

Petro

[ebia]

You have to be joking.

If you don't want to debate this, that fine.

If you think I'm going to waste my time picking through someone else's website to post refutations here, you are very much mistaken.

[Petro]

ebia,

posted by ebia as reply #30

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.

The reason why JW's like it is because it agrees more so with theirs, than the KJV does.

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.

Who knows what their motive was, the fact is there are verses that are not there, and yet appear in manuscripts, and the verses which are butchered, by ommission, change thye text considerably, to the point that the gospel is not the same gosple, priuor to the changes.

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.
 
 

You need to determine this for yourself.  The NIV, is continually being changed, the gender neutral version, won't sell in this country so, it isn't soemthing, this generation will deal with, but, in other country's it sells well,;

the version for young children, is deceitfull, in that it includes the number of the verses omitted with the previvious or latter verse, giving the reader the impression, that the verse is included in the text of that verse, when in fact it is totally not their.

As for your rendition, that Daniel 3:25 is speaking of Nebuchadnezer, is false, verse 26, places nebuchadnezer as one of the observers, to what others were seeing in the pit.

What version are you reading anyhow??

wheeeeww...........

Petro

[ebia]

BTW, is that how you do your evangelising:  "Here's a bible, read through it, if you have any questions try google."

[ebia]

posted by ebia as reply #30

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.

The reason why JW's like it is because it agrees more so with theirs, than the KJV does.

And vice-versa for the Mormons.

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.

Who knows what their motive was, the fact is there are verses that are not there, and yet appear in manuscripts, and the verses which are butchered, by ommission, change thye text considerably, to the point that the gospel is not the same gosple, priuor to the changes.

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.
 

You need to determine this for yourself.

I'm trying to work out what you believe, so I can concentrate on dealing with that rather than waste time on side issues.
I'm quite happy I know what I believe.

The NIV, is continually being changed, the gender neutral version, won't sell in this country so, it isn't soemthing, this generation will deal with, but, in other country's it sells well,;

I wan't aware there was a gender neutral version of the NIV - I've not seen one in England or Australia.  They are not something I'm happy about, but that really is a separate issue.

the version for young children, is deceitfull, in that it includes the number of the verses omitted with the previvious or latter verse, giving the reader the impression, that the verse is included in the text of that verse, when in fact it is totally not their.

I couldn't really comment, not having looked at one, but a young child's bible is, by it's nature, an imperfect comprimise.


As for your rendition, that Daniel 3:25 is speaking of Nebuchadnezer, is false, verse 26, places nebuchadnezer as one of the observers, to what others were seeing in the pit.

What version are you reading anyhow??
I was looking at the NIV as that was what you were railing against:

24 Then King Nebuchadnezzar leaped to his feet in amazement and asked his advisers, "Weren't there three men that we tied up and threw into the fire?"
They replied, "Certainly, O king."
25 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."

So it is the King saying it.

Likewise the AV:

24   Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
25   He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

which has "Son of God", but still has the King saying it:
King:  Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?
Advisors:  True O King
King:  Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

(Lack of quote marks in the AV do make life harder).

[ebia]

Oops, missed this bit:

Quote:
Who knows what their motive was, the fact is there are verses that are not there, and yet appear in manuscripts, and the verses which are butchered, by ommission, change thye text considerably, to the point that the gospel is not the same gosple, priuor to the changes.

In some manuscripts.  They leave out verses that are included in the AV, where other manuscripts have thrown considerable doubt on whether or not those verses are original.  In most if not all cases footnotes are present to alert the reader that a choice has had to be made.

Erasmus had to make exactly the same sort of choices when he put together the texts that were eventually translated into the AV, but with less information.

[Petro]

BTW, is that how you do your evangelising:  "Here's a bible, read through it, if you have any questions try google."

ebia,

I am not trying to evangelize you, what gave you such a notion, I recognize someone who is unteachable.

And you are that kind of person.

By your own account, the fact you believe the true word of God, includes the deuterocanonicall books, betrays where you have placed your faith.

I am giving you information, you can do with it what you will, it is plain you don't read the post addressed to you anyhow..

Another thing, is I wonder if you are able to process the information given to you??

This is probaly where your problem lies..inability or better yet unwillingness, to consider what is true.

You believe you already have it, but I hate to break your bubble, you don't..it isd plain.

Petro

[Ambassador4Christ]

BTW, is that how you do your evangelising:  "Here's a bible, read through it, if you have any questions try google."

ebia,

I am not trying to evangelize you, what gave you such a notion, I recognize someone who is unteachable.

And you are that kind of person.

By your own account, the fact you believe the true word of God, includes the deuterocanonicall books, betrays where you have placed your faith.

I am giving you information, you can do with it what you will, it is plain you don't read the post addressed to you anyhow..

Another thing, is I wonder if you are able to process the information given to you??

This is probaly where your problem lies..inability or better yet unwillingness, to consider what is true.

You believe you already have it, but I hate to break your bubble, you don't..it isd plain.

Petro

DITTO

[Allinall]

Petro,

You've failed to give me scriptural support.  You've rather, sent me to past posts concerning the historical background of your favored translations renderings - Tyndale/Wycliffe.  What scripture do you use to support this?  If you've posted it and I missed it, please forgive me.  I'm old and tend to miss things sometimes.    You also make note of the "tweeking" of the NIV; how they have changed words.  Realize, you are saying that they are changing words that inevitably make the NIV disagree with the KJV - not itself/its own transcripts from which it is derived.  As for the gender specific issue - I agree.  That is tampering at its worse level.  The point I mean to make here is that when you say the translation changes something, it only changes from the perspective of the TR - not from its transcript.

As for the website you listed for ebia, I'll check it and post later.  We must not stand on historical precedent but on scriptural principle.

[nChrist]

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.

KJV  

Brother Love

Oklahoma Howdy to Brother Love,

I've been waiting for a proper time to do this again.

DITTO!  

One plain KJV for reading, and one KJV with Strong's Numbers for deeper study.

In Christ.

[ebia]

BTW, is that how you do your evangelising:  "Here's a bible, read through it, if you have any questions try google."

ebia,

I am not trying to evangelize you, what gave you such a notion,

That was a joke. Not the best I've ever made, but there you go.

I recognize someone who is unteachable.

And you are that kind of person.

LOL

By your own account, the fact you believe the true word of God, includes the deuterocanonicall books, betrays where you have placed your faith.

In God, ta.

I am giving you information, you can do with it what you will, it is plain you don't read the post addressed to you anyhow..

I've read everything on the thread, thank you very much.

Another thing, is I wonder if you are able to process the information given to you??

The point of debate is not to see who can post the largest quantity of irrelevent or semi-revelent information, but to persuade people with relevent information tied together with ideas and logic.

This is probaly where your problem lies..inability or better yet unwillingness, to consider what is true.

An inability to fall down when bombarded with quotes, more like.

[asaph]

Test Your Knowledge of the King James Version
and other translations: A Brief Survey
by Rick Norris

True or False
1._____The King James Version became the official version of the Church of England, replacing the Bishops' Bible.
2. _____The KJV was the first English Bible to be published without the Apocrypha.
3. _____There were two different editions of the KJV published in 1611.
4. _____Some of the translators of the KJV were involved in persecuting other believers, even to the point of burning two men at the stake for their religious beliefs.
5._____Some of the KJV translators claimed that one man, Archbishop Richard Bancroft, made fourteen changes in their translation without their approval.
6. _____Some of the translators of the KJV were Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and Independents while the rest were Anglicans.
7. _____One of the KJV translators had a brother that was one of the translators of the earlier Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible.
8. _____The publishing of English-language Bibles including the KJV was permitted in America before the Revolutionary War.
9. _____ The KJV did not update or revise any of the words in the earlier English Bibles.
10._____Tyndale's Old Testament used the rendering "Jehovah" at least fifteen times where the KJV does not.
11. _____ The 1611 KJV has "seek good" at Psalm 69:32 while present KJV's have "seek God."
12. _____ In the book of Acts, the Great Bible has over 100 words that are not found in the KJV.
13. _____ The 1535 Coverdale's Bible does not have the rendering "penance," which was sometimes used in the earlier 1389 Wycliffe's Bible from the Latin Vulgate.
14. _____ The KJV N.T. was the seventh English translation of the New Testament.
15. _____ Erasmus was a Reformer like Martin Luther.
16. _____ Charles Thomson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and secretary of the Continental Congress, made the first English translation from the Septuagint and the first complete English translation by an American.
17. _____ The KJV updated some archaic uses of "quick" with "living" at some verses in the earlier English Bibles.
18. _____ The earlier English Bibles such as Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew's do not have any missing verses and phrases when compared to the KJV.
19. _____ Erasmus admired Jerome, translator of the Vulgate.
20. _____ King James was a great, godly king, who loved the Puritans.

Answers to Survey about Bible Translations
with some brief explanations
by Rick Norris

True or False
1. True
2. False - The first English Bible published without the Apocrypha was an 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible.
3. True - (the famous "He" and "She" Bibles plus other differences)
4. True
5. True
6. False - All the translators of the KJV were Anglicans or members of the Church of England. A few were Puritans, but they were members of the Church of England.
7. True - (John Reynolds--KJV; William--Douay-Rheims)
8. False - No English Bibles were permitted to be published in America before Revolutionary War.
9. False - The KJV did revise or update the earlier Bibles.
10. True
11. True
12. True - The Great Bible has over 100 additional words from Latin Vulgate in book of Acts.
13. False - Coverdale's Bible does have "penance" a few times.
14. False - (Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, 1538 Coverdale's Latin-English N.T., Great, Taverner's, Whittingham's, Geneva, Bishops', 1551 Bishop Becke's Bible, 1552 Richard Jugge's N.T., KJV)
15. False - Erasmus remained a Roman Catholic.
16. True
17. True
18. False - (Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's did not have Mark 11:26 and Luke 17:36 because they were not in Erasmus's Greek N.T. plus many phrases)
19. True
20. False - James hated the Puritans, and he was guilty of many ungodly actions such as persecuting believers.

[Petro]

Petro,

You've failed to give me scriptural support.  You've rather, sent me to past posts concerning the historical background of your favored translations renderings - Tyndale/Wycliffe.  What scripture do you use to support this?  If you've posted it and I missed it, please forgive me.  I'm old and tend to miss things sometimes.    You also make note of the "tweeking" of the NIV; how they have changed words.  Realize, you are saying that they are changing words that inevitably make the NIV disagree with the KJV - not itself/its own transcripts from which it is derived.  As for the gender specific issue - I agree.  That is tampering at its worse level.  The point I mean to make here is that when you say the translation changes something, it only changes from the perspective of the TR - not from its transcript.

As for the website you listed for ebia, I'll check it and post later.  We must not stand on historical precedent but on scriptural principle.

Allinall,

You are focusing (fixated) on something other than the issue I have raised.

You don't have to go far to see the glaring differences of the translations, If you care to look at the Table of Comparisons, you can see the verses which have been changeed,m by ommission or additons or words.

What you are asking, you can resolve for yourself, by looking up how it came to be, I have supplied enough info, to help with that.

I am interested in taking alot of time for arguing the merits for the translations, as much as the actual results of the translation work, by these who have corrupted the good Word.

As for your query, concerning my favorite Tyndale&Wyclife renderings, specifically what is your question, I stated that the KJV (AV) is at least 80%+ verbatim with Tyndales, and a good portion of Wycliffes is also, found verbatim, in the KJV. I even pointed out Genesis 33, is word for words Tyndales.  This a historical fact.

I gave ebia, Dan 3:25, and the two renderings in the KJV and NIV, there is a substantial difference of between both of these translations at this verse, the  agrees with the New World Translation of John 1:1, refering to Jesus as a God.

There are many many more, I say look at the Table of Comparison, and by the way, you don't have to ask me, whats wrong with the verses.

If you can't see the problems, (like ebia there, he focus's on something other than the translation s) then  am not going to be able to explain them to your satisfaction anyhow.

Asking what is wrong with these two translations, when it is obvious to other chirstians, will only cause some to wonder, .........where are you here??

Blessings,

Petro

[ebia]

How many times to people have to point it out?

Showing there are differences does not and can not prove which is right.

The AV is not the original.  

I gave ebia, Dan 3:25, and the two renderings in the KJV and NIV, there is a substantial difference of between both of these translations at this verse, the  agrees with the New World Translation of John 1:1, refering to Jesus as a God.

Ho hum.  I thought we'd dealt with this one - since they are the words of a king who did believe there is more than one God, the translation is perfectly reasonable.
Besides, the Aramaic is pretty clearly plural, so the translators of the AV seem to have made a mistake (or possibly perpetuated a mistake already present in the Vulgage).

This is all irrelevent though, because:
Showing there are differences does not and can not prove which is right.

Maybe I should put that as my signature line, to save repeating it.

[Brother Love]

If the KJV was good enough for Paul, its good enough for me and my family.


Brother Love