Acts 9:5

[bigape]

Download a copy of William Tyndale’s Bible(the 1st English Bible) and compare it to the King James Bible(the last accurate English Bible produced), and you will see that they say the same thing.

No disrespect intended, but neither of those are the Word of God.

They are a translation of the Word of God into english and have their own weaknesses, though I'd take the Tyndale over the KJV because he didn't submit to substituting ecclesiastical words like "church" or "easter" in error like the KJV.

Hello Yod

To be a “Worthy Watchman” you should have known....

The Tyndale’s Bible had both “church” and “Easter”, just like the KJV.

----------

And if the Bible we hold in our hands is not “the Word of God”, than God was not able to preserve it for us.

Have a nice day.

[nebula]

To be a “Worthy Watchman” you should have known....

BigApe, you can refrain from the insulting attitude.

"Worthy Watchmen" are a group of members who assist the Servants (Board Moderators). That is all.

[Guest yod]

Download a copy of William Tyndale’s Bible(the 1st English Bible) and compare it to the King James Bible(the last accurate English Bible produced), and you will see that they say the same thing.

No disrespect intended, but neither of those are the Word of God.

They are a translation of the Word of God into english and have their own weaknesses, though I'd take the Tyndale over the KJV because he didn't submit to substituting ecclesiastical words like "church" or "easter" in error like the KJV.

Hello Yod

To be a “Worthy Watchman” you should have known....

The Tyndale’s Bible had both “church” and “Easter”, just like the KJV.

----------

It didn't when he wrote it in 1525, so if you see it there today it was changed after his death. "Ekklesia" is translated as "community" by William Tyndale, and the Puritans translated it "congregation", both of which are accurate while the word "church" is not. Luther used "congregation" in his German translation as did the Dutch, Danish, Swiss, and Norwegian bibles.

And of course, for translating the Word of God accurately, Tyndale was burned at the stake as a heretic by the "church".

The "church" has always been the greatest opposition to the most accurate translation of the scriptures by imposing this word (and other european theological content) into the text.

The translators of the KJV had rules to follow and rule #3 was that the ecclesiastical words like "Church" would be used instead of the correct words "community" or "congregation"

And if the Bible we hold in our hands is not “the Word of God”, than God was not able to preserve it for us.

I don't question the authority of the Word of God, ever. But there are how many dozens of translations? Are you saying they are all 100% correct? IF so, then why are they different?

No, my friend, just because the cover says "Holy Bible" does not mean that it's a 100% accurate translation.

And thanks, I did have a nice day.

[Guest yod]

God did preserve his Word in the TR, and only a translation that begins with the TR will be accurate. Others will have ommissions and mistakes. I wasn't going to comment further on the issue, but since Yod decided to add his post, I felt the need to.

I use the KJV more than any other translation, but have no illusions about a translation being a perfect document no matter which language it goes to.

The KJV has mistakes of translation, whether one wants to admit it or not. They are not enough to hide the simplicity of the gospel, but they are there.

Again, my examples:

The word "pesach" should be translated as "Passover" not "Easter"

The word "church" inserts theological content into the text which was never intended by the original speakers and/or writers.

Other than that, I like the KJV as a mostly reliable source for the english translation.

[nebula]

That is the explaination, and of course it will lead to another debate over the KJV Bible. I was just talking to someone last week, who told me they had bought a new translation of the Bible recommended by Billy Graham. They liked it because it was easy to understand. I asked to see it, and in a matter of minutes, I had pointed out how it left verses out of the text, and put them in footnotes. They had no idea that was taking place, and didn't think to read the footnotes till I pointed that out. I have had people insist that everyone automatically reads them, but that is not true. It is the TR verses the other manuscripts? I don't feel any need to start that debate anew here, as it is already being argued elsewhere, but that is why it only appears in some translations. It is also why I will not use anything but the KJV Bible.

As far as the verse goes, it just means that it is useless to fight against the truth. You are not doing anything but doing harm to yourself, as it is painful to kick against the pricks. The word pricks comes from the word kentron, and it means a point ("centre"), i.e. a sting (fig. poinson) or goad (fig. divine impulse): prick, sting.

Thanks, but my question was why some translations do not include the phrase in there.

[Guest yod]

That is far more important to me than whether or not a word should have been translated to Easter or passover, or whether another word should have been translated to church verses congregation? I agree with the KJV Bible, but if that was the biggest issue with new translations, I wouldn't make a big deal about them? Leaving verses out of the text is a huge deal.

I agree that leaving out or adding to the scriptures is a problem.

The only disagreement I seem to have with you is a matter of the degree of damage caused. You don't seem willing to admit that every translation is imperfect, though some are more accurate to the original than others.

In my opinion, leaving that verse mentioned in the OP completely out doesn't do as much harm as imposing the word "church" onto the text since it is loaded with european cultural context and theology....while the word "community" or "Congregation" is not.

But hey, we're discussing it on a discussion board so feel free to disagree.

[nebula]

Obviously, I believe the verse belongs in the text,

Why?

[nebula]

And Nebula, sorry I misunderstood your original question. The answer to that question is that the TR included that verse ..., but some of the copies of the original manuscripts that were found in caves and used in modern English translations were copied in a sloppy manner, and left some verses out. ....

That's the response I needed to hear. No preaching needed. Thank-you.