IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE?

[Petro]

Allinall,

Well blow me down..............  the ESV, is, of all the vernacular versions, the one which most closely, follows the KJV.

Interesting you defend the transcripts used to change the AV, found in the trash can at the monastery, to be inspired.

The monk that placed it there, was more honest than you, he  recognized this is the place where these needed to be filed.

If I would have been the fellow that found them, and went on to use them, I would never have mentioned the fact they were in the trash receptacle.

But there you go, the Holy Spirit, makes this little fact known for those who want to know what the truth of all this is.

Petro

The monk.  The Catholic monk.  The Catholic monk who practiced the doctrines of the Catholic church which holds that the word of God is the word of God because the Catholic church says so above the assertions made within the scriptures themselves; holds to baptismal/sacremental regeneration; holds to the veneration of the Virgin Mary...shall I go on?  These are the same folks who "recognized the place where these (transcripts) need to be filed?"  And you say my honesty is in question?    

As for the ESV, I chose it due to its ecclectic nature my friend.  Ecclectic.  Means I like the KJV too!  

Aia,

Well there you go, one mans trash is another mans treasure.

Mariology and sacramentalism together with baptismal renegeration is the result of incorporating, doctrines of men, into the teaching s of scripture.

As for ecclectic ways, I would say this is why, you have such a problem understanding the teaching of scripture, since the NEW World Translation is part of your world of ecclecticISM.

And as for the KJV, you really don't like it at all, afterall isn't this the reason why you defend the vernacular versions, your arguments have been against the TR, and the AV.



Petro

[Ambassador4Christ]

Aia,

Well there you go, one mans trash is another mans treasure.

Mariology and sacramentalism together with baptismal renegeration is the result of incorporating, doctrines of men, into the teaching s of scripture.

As for ecclectic ways, I would say this is why, you have such a problem understanding the teaching of scripture, since the NEW World Translation is part of your world of ecclecticISM.

And as for the KJV, you really don't like it at all, afterall isn't this the reason why you defend the vernacular versions, your arguments have been against the TR, and the AV.



Petro

DITTO

[Petro]

I just remembered somehting;

Webster's New World Dictionary defines "eclectic" as: "to select, to pick out, to choose -- 1. selecting from various systems, doctrines or sources; 2. composed of material gathered from various sources or systems."

It's like cherry picking, and if you have an agenda like Wescott and Hort had, the word of God can and was changed to suit there goals.

http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html

I have taken excerpts from the site, to  point out deficiencies in the  Wescott & Hort Theory; I would encourage anyone who is not familiar with the contraversy, to inform themselves.

The NIV Story, by Burton Goddard, describes the eclectic method used by the NIV joint committee for this contemporary translation.

Although NIV apologists claim that the eclectic method was used in translation, editors of this version have shown in their other writings a preference for the Westcott and Hort Aleph and B manuscripts..

In NIV passages that do not involve fundamental doctrinal issues, the editors used Majority Text readings. This was necessary in order to comply with copyright regulations, which require that new versions contain a larger portion of the Traditional Text in order to be classified as "Bibles."

However, in selected verses containing essential doctrine, "They used random minority text type readings when an opportunity arose to present New Age philosophy or demote God or Christ." .
It seems that the New International Version was translated without much theological restraint in order to convey the private interpretations of men and to appeal to, or not offend, a variety of religious sects. According to one NIV editor, I John 5:7 is "the strongest statement in the KJV on the Trinity."

Yet its omission from this new version reflects its prior omission from the New Greek Text, by F.J.A. Hort's design..

This revision, along with many others of doctrinal importance, probably accounts for the broad application of the Westcott-Hort New Greek Text.

Few Christians realize that the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witness cult is based upon this same corrupted text which underlies the NIV and all other modern translations. .

So much for the use of this suave word, which can be used to make a claim like;

"Ecclectic.  Means I like the KJV too!"

Hah........... what a joke!

Now,, you know the rest of the story.


Petro

[Allinall]

And as for the KJV, you really don't like it at all, afterall isn't this the reason why you defend the vernacular versions, your arguments have been against the TR, and the AV.

Once again, you've missed the point.  It was never to down the KJV.  I, for one, find it beautiful as well, albeit difficult to commonly, and correctly understand.  My point has been, and always will be, that if you attempt to marry scripture with this viewpoint you will be forced to take scriptures out of context.  I have hermenuetically refuted each scriptural support given without being rebutted.  Let me just say something else here: I do not have issue with others preferring one translation over another.  I do that afterall!    It is when our preferences are presented as biblical principles when no such principle exists that the problem arises.  I know.  I say this and will most likely be considered unlearned as I have failed to see what you've pulled out of a passage that has nothing to do with what you've found in it.  But that's the point.  If it is your preference, then remain true to the scriptures you hold closest too: keep it as just that.  Preference.  If God has not said "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" then we've no business putting words in His mouth.  

As for the heretical gender changes and politically correct approaches found in the liberal translations, I do not agree with the truth of those translations.  That is, I don't believe such translational work to be correct.  In the beginning, I showed how no translation is correct, as they all use "baptize" and "church."  This does not make them right in removing gender, nor does it make the any of the translators right with their transliteration.

As for ecclectic ways, I would say this is why, you have such a problem understanding the teaching of scripture, since the NEW World Translation is part of your world of ecclecticISM.

The teaching of scripture would be what? That the KJV is the only proper translation? Again, I've asked for more supporting scripture than what was given.  What was given was taken out of context to prove an incorrect point.  What other proof have you to make principle of a preference?

[Petro]

Allinall,

The onus is not on me to prove anything, better men than I have proven the false theories, and agendas porported by these, so called translators, who have preverted the Word of God and His Savior.

You ignorance of this matter, is not one of being decieved, you willfully chose to be deceived, this matter isn't new, it's been around for many years, you can inform yourslef if you so desire.

You knew about the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. Tischendorf discovered (c. A.D. 1844) the Vaticanus B manuscript in the Vatican Library and Sinaiticus Aleph in a waste basket in a Catholic convent at the base of Mt. Sinai, or do you now plead ignorance to these;  the history behind these is quite evident.

You are blind to this because you chose is to be so.

Petro

[Petro]

Allinall,


In order to teach and learn scripture one must have a reliable translation.

As I stated before, when the cults take and interest in a certain transaltion (the Watchtower Society in this case) that ought to signify something is not right.

If you have to ask ;

The teaching of scripture would be what? That the KJV is the only proper translation?

Only, indicates you have missed the point..

I have given you two more sights, which inform you, whats wrong..

http://home.mweb.co.za/en/enoque/Mark%2016%20in%20the%20Vaticanus.htm

About the omission of Mark 16:9-20 in the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
The space left open in the Vaticanus is more or less the same as in the Sinaiticus before it was tampered with: one full column and a little bit of the other. Compare with the normal way of ending a book, never leaving an open column and wasting space (see end of Matthew and beginning of Mark in the Vaticanus Vaticanus End of Matthew.jpg 123Kb)
Please, check page 1303 of the Vaticanus (see file Vaticanus End of Mark.jpg 105Kb) and compare with page 29 of the Sinaiticus (see file Sinaiticus29.htm ).
We know that the Codex Vaticanus is superstitiously kept locked in the Library of Vatican, and nobody can analyze it closely. It is suspected that monks, centuries ago, re-wrote many letters that were fading away, and tampered with the text. We also know that it contains the apocryphal books that were rejected by the Reformation and its Bibles and that Revelation is omitted (Sinaiticus ends not on Revelation, but adds two books of the occult: The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas).
The copy presented here was obtained at the Johannesburg Reference Library (in 1997), from a facsimile of a copy of the transcript of the original into Modern Greek type. The open space at the end of Mark is exactly and accurately kept as in the original manuscript.

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-4.html

In this article we will not analyse these footnotes, simply because there are scores of them scattered throughout the modern translations and each has a slightly different slant. However, one thing they all have in common: and that is, they ALL cast doubt on the accuracy of the Authorised King James Bible! By implication they all claim to be more accurate and reliable than the King James Version. In the preface of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) we read this misleading statement. "Yet the King James Version has grave defects." Oh how subtle is Satan, how evil and how sinister! The stunning fact is: the very opposite is true. The King James Version is infinitely more accurate and reliable than ANY modern English translation on the market today.
How did it happen that the Minority Text supplanted the trustworthy and respected Textus Receptus which triggered the great Protestant Reformation during which tens of thousands of true believers perished by flame, famine and torture? Who is behind this dangerous deception that has engulfed the Christian Church? Do you know? Do you care? Is it important? Does it really matter?

Petro

[Allinall]

So I take it you have no scriptural support for this viewpoint?  Quaint.  I'd love to base something I'd willingly deride others concerning on something other than scripture.  You hold a strong opinion without scriptural support.  You are willing to say that I am unlearned, though I have repeatedly pointed out that I have studied this and have come to the conclusion that I have.  That conclusion, according to you, is willful ignorance.  Am I then to begin questioning my very salvation because I disagree with your position as well?  Will I be considered antichrist?  If each of these seem a bit extreme, I only state them because I have heard such arguments from those who support your position.  The only point I've tried to make is to know the word and what it says.  You've failed to show me in this area such discernment.  You've shown it in other areas, but not here.  Here, the contextual approach you so freely and willingly take in other areas, you fail to take because it denies the scriptural support you seek for your position.  I have yet to find an author, or a pastor, or a lay person that holds to your position that rationally deals with this when confronted with the error of their usage of scripture.  It simply becomes a heated argument, and the opposition is labled anathema.  "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."  Does God approve of misinterpreting a passage to support our good intentions?  Is that rightly dividing the truth?  Does God approve of downgrading a brother in Christ who disagrees with you?  Does He?

I ask these questions because in this argument over which word is the word, we lose the focus of that word.  God.  If I am wrong (which I don't believe I am for reasons stated before), then is this how we are to treat a brother in error?  By calling him ignorant?  For a believer who holds to the scriptures as firmly as you, brother, you lack in your accordance thereto.

[Petro]

So I take it you have no scriptural support for this viewpoint?  

Allinall,

Your asking the wrong question.

The mere changing of the interpretation of text, supports the viewpoint.

The points are made very well in these sites, what do I have to add to this??

I use the vernacular english versions, but don't take the words written at face value; I cross refernece words, and look at my interlinear, lexicon to see if what is written agrees.

Keep studying I say..

Petro

[tbs]

I would like to pick up on an erroneous statement made in the opening post of this thread.

"the King James Bible, was used by the Body of Christ at large".

This is not true.  The King James Version of the Bible was, obviously, only used in the English speaking world, and not by all of it.  

During this same period there were other English translations (e.g. the Douay-Rheims), translations into other languages (Louis Segond in French, William Morgan's in Welsh and the indigenous languages of the lands where Orthodox Christians worshipped) - therefore it is simply not true to say that the KJV was anywhere near used by "the Body of Christ" at large.  

Those who did not speak English or were part of the Roman, Lutheran and Reformed Churches on the continent of Europe (and those who emigrated to the Americas) certainly did not use the KJV.  Many of them would have been hard-pressed to know who King James was.

[Brother Love]

I would like to pick up on an erroneous statement made in the opening post of this thread.

"the King James Bible, was used by the Body of Christ at large".

This is not true.  The King James Version of the Bible was, obviously, only used in the English speaking world, and not by all of it.  

During this same period there were other English translations (e.g. the Douay-Rheims), translations into other languages (Louis Segond in French, William Morgan's in Welsh and the indigenous languages of the lands where Orthodox Christians worshipped) - therefore it is simply not true to say that the KJV was anywhere near used by "the Body of Christ" at large.  

Those who did not speak English or were part of the Roman, Lutheran and Reformed Churches on the continent of Europe (and those who emigrated to the Americas) certainly did not use the KJV.  Many of them would have been hard-pressed to know who King James was.

IS YOUR BIBLE THE RIGHT ONE? (Part 1)

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God..." (II Corinthians 2:17)


For over 350 years the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible, was used by the Body of Christ at large and confidently believed to be the Word of God. In the last 3 or 4 decades all this has changed.

Now we are faced with a variable Babel of confusion over the various Bible versions and English translations continuously being introduced on the market. There is a serious question which must be faced: Are these modern versions really reliable - are they really versions or, as many have come to claim, perversions of the Word of God?


Brother Love

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Brother Love:

Reassertion is not the same thing as addressing a point.

[Knox]

Now we are faced with a variable Babel of confusion

Oh man, how lame. He's not even reasserting his own thoughts. When I saw that the words 'veritable' and 'variable' were confused, I got suspicious and googled the line quoted above. Brother Love's posts on this thread are all written by someone else. The URL isn't up any more but it's clear he cribbed an article from someplace.

http://www.google.de/search?q=%22Now+we+are+faced+with+a+variable+Babel+%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=de&btnG=Google+Suche&meta=

[tbs]

Brother Love, some friendly advice from a lawyer - just saying the same things over and over again don't prove your point.  I have argued that your assertion is wrong - it is still wrong even if you post it again.  Is it safe for me to assume that, by not being able to rebut my point, you accept it?

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It is attributed in the second post.

Nevertheless, Brother Love has done nothing to actually argue his case - just statement and restatement.  This is not debate.

[nChrist]

Brother Love, some friendly advice from a lawyer - just saying the same things over and over again don't prove your point.  I have argued that your assertion is wrong - it is still wrong even if you post it again.  Is it safe for me to assume that, by not being able to rebut my point, you accept it?

UM??, I thought the debate was over and Brother Love won. I guess we could have a poll and confirm that.