King James Version question

[LookingForAnswers]

 

so again a part of the Body of Christ says that God can't do all things, was Not the Same Holy Spirit, that the translators had the same Holy Ghost that the Writers of the original manuscripts had, and you must have missed one of my post, if God can't inspire translators than you are speaking with forked tongue or out of both sides of your mouth, for the original language in the gospels were Hebrew and Aramaic , so the greek was a translation!!!

 

 

This group of words from you make no sense at all, what is it you are trying to say here.

 

Also, you are wrong about the language of the NT...

http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/in-what-language-was-the-bible-first-written/

 

The New Testament, however, was written in Greek. This seems strange, since you might think it would be either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew anymore, and this disturbed the Jewish leaders a lot! So, around 300 BC a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken, and it was completed around 200 BC. Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues. It also became a wonderful missionary tool for the early Christians, for now the Greeks could read God's Word in their own tongue.

[His_disciple3]

we can talk Bible history, state why we use what translation we use, and accuse each other of things we have not said, til Christ comes back. Bottom Line is we are of One Body, and there is to be NO SCHISM (Split or division) in that body. and there is not a one in here on either side of the issue, can say that the modern translations has not cause such Schism! and this can not be of God, now you can accuse Me and others for that split, but if the modern day translations had not been this division or this thread would not be.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

so again a part of the Body of Christ says that God can't do all things, was Not the Same Holy Spirit, that the translators had the same Holy Ghost that the Writers of the original manuscripts had, and you must have missed one of my post, if God can't inspire translators than you are speaking with forked tongue or out of both sides of your mouth, for the original language in the gospels were Hebrew and Aramaic , so the greek was a translation!!!

 

The doctrine of inspiration doesn't carry over to translations.  The only inspired text is the autographs, the originals.  Translations are copies of the inspired text.  Once again, the translators make no claim to be inspired.  You are assigning values to the translators that they do not make for themselves.  There are no inspired translators.

 

Jesus spoke Hebrew Aramaic, but the original text was written in Greek, so no the original Greek was not a translation, per se.  A translation requires an original document to to translate from.

 

Sorry ,but you don't know what you are talking about. 

[His_disciple3]

so again a part of the Body of Christ says that God can't do all things, was Not the Same Holy Spirit, that the translators had the same Holy Ghost that the Writers of the original manuscripts had, and you must have missed one of my post, if God can't inspire translators than you are speaking with forked tongue or out of both sides of your mouth, for the original language in the gospels were Hebrew and Aramaic , so the greek was a translation!!!

 

This group of words from you make no sense at all, what is it you are trying to say here.

 

Also, you are wrong about the language of the NT...

http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/in-what-language-was-the-bible-first-written/

 

The New Testament, however, was written in Greek. This seems strange, since you might think it would be either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew anymore, and this disturbed the Jewish leaders a lot! So, around 300 BC a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken, and it was completed around 200 BC. Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues. It also became a wonderful missionary tool for the early Christians, for now the Greeks could read God's Word in their own tongue.

it seems amazing to me that you are claiming that God can take a time period even in different languages, and inspire someone many years after the fact to record an infallible account. But in no wise can He inspire translators in 1600's to give us an infallible account of same time period, in a different language! truly amazed and that is amazed as confused not glorified amazed. and I guess by your standard of translations is when in scripture translation is giving example when Christ was on the cross was not inspired of God either then!!!!

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

for every website you reference to I can counter, and I also found it amazing that you believe your website can be truth, but no way can we have a true English bible. see post # 42

[His_disciple3]

so again a part of the Body of Christ says that God can't do all things, was Not the Same Holy Spirit, that the translators had the same Holy Ghost that the Writers of the original manuscripts had, and you must have missed one of my post, if God can't inspire translators than you are speaking with forked tongue or out of both sides of your mouth, for the original language in the gospels were Hebrew and Aramaic , so the greek was a translation!!!

The doctrine of inspiration doesn't carry over to translations.  The only inspired text is the autographs, the originals.  Translations are copies of the inspired text.  Once again, the translators make no claim to be inspired.  You are assigning values to the translators that they do not make for themselves.  There are no inspired translators.

 

Jesus spoke Hebrew Aramaic, but the original text was written in Greek, so no the original Greek was not a translation, per se.  A translation requires an original document to to translate from.

 

Sorry ,but you don't know what you are talking about.

it seems amazing to me that you are claiming that God can take a time period even in different languages, and inspire someone many years after the fact to record an infallible account. But in no wise can He inspire translators in 1600's to give us an infallible account of same time period, in a different language! truly amazed and that is amazed as confused not glorified amazed. and I guess by your standard of translations is when in scripture translation is giving example when Christ was on the cross was not inspired of God either then!!!!

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

so all the letters written to the Church in the bible days were not translated to greek for the manuscripts? or should I say can you back up your fact, can you prove that the letters of 1,2,and 3 John were not letters that was translated to greek? see post #42 please

[Guest shiloh357]

it seems amazing to me that you are claiming that God can take a time period even in different languages, and inspire someone many years after the fact to record an infallible account. But in no wise can He inspire translators in 1600's to give us an infallible account of same time period, in a different language! truly amazed and that is amazed as confused not glorified amazed. and I guess by your standard of translations is when in scripture translation is giving example when Christ was on the cross was not inspired of God either then!!!!

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

 

The translators were not inspired by God to write that translation.  They were commissioned by King James to write a new translation.

 

The 1599 Geneva Bible relied on the orginal languages.  The KJV is just an Oxford revision of the Geneva Bible.  The KJV was commissioned by King James because the Geneva Bible included notes that promoted Calvinism and were hostile to both the Roman Catholic Church and King James himself.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

so again a part of the Body of Christ says that God can't do all things, was Not the Same Holy Spirit, that the translators had the same Holy Ghost that the Writers of the original manuscripts had, and you must have missed one of my post, if God can't inspire translators than you are speaking with forked tongue or out of both sides of your mouth, for the original language in the gospels were Hebrew and Aramaic , so the greek was a translation!!!

 

This group of words from you make no sense at all, what is it you are trying to say here.

 

Also, you are wrong about the language of the NT...

http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/in-what-language-was-the-bible-first-written/

 

The New Testament, however, was written in Greek. This seems strange, since you might think it would be either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew anymore, and this disturbed the Jewish leaders a lot! So, around 300 BC a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken, and it was completed around 200 BC. Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues. It also became a wonderful missionary tool for the early Christians, for now the Greeks could read God's Word in their own tongue.

 

it seems amazing to me that you are claiming that God can take a time period even in different languages, and inspire someone many years after the fact to record an infallible account. But in no wise can He inspire translators in 1600's to give us an infallible account of same time period, in a different language! truly amazed and that is amazed as confused not glorified amazed. and I guess by your standard of translations is when in scripture translation is giving example when Christ was on the cross was not inspired of God either then!!!!

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

for every website you reference to I can counter, and I also found it amazing that you believe your website can be truth, but no way can we have a true English bible. see post # 42

 

 

Do you at least now know what language the Gospels were written in?

[LookingForAnswers]

we can talk Bible history, state why we use what translation we use, and accuse each other of things we have not said, til Christ comes back. Bottom Line is we are of One Body, and there is to be NO SCHISM (Split or division) in that body. and there is not a one in here on either side of the issue, can say that the modern translations has not cause such Schism! and this can not be of God, now you can accuse Me and others for that split, but if the modern day translations had not been this division or this thread would not be.

 

I blame the KJV for the division. 

[His_disciple3]

it seems amazing to me that you are claiming that God can take a time period even in different languages, and inspire someone many years after the fact to record an infallible account. But in no wise can He inspire translators in 1600's to give us an infallible account of same time period, in a different language! truly amazed and that is amazed as confused not glorified amazed. and I guess by your standard of translations is when in scripture translation is giving example when Christ was on the cross was not inspired of God either then!!!!

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

The translators were not inspired by God to write that translation.  They were commissioned by King James to write a new translation.

 

The 1599 Geneva Bible relied on the orginal languages.  The KJV is just an Oxford revision of the Geneva Bible.  The KJV was commissioned by King James because the Geneva Bible included notes that promoted Calvinism and were hostile to both the Roman Catholic Church and King James himself.

if you know Bible history as you state, you know yourself, your last post( The KJV is just an Oxford revision of the Geneva Bible) is false see post #42

[His_disciple3]

we can talk Bible history, state why we use what translation we use, and accuse each other of things we have not said, til Christ comes back. Bottom Line is we are of One Body, and there is to be NO SCHISM (Split or division) in that body. and there is not a one in here on either side of the issue, can say that the modern translations has not cause such Schism! and this can not be of God, now you can accuse Me and others for that split, but if the modern day translations had not been this division or this thread would not be.

 

I blame the KJV for the division.

Roflol that division did not come about until after the dead sea scrolls were found.