Guest shiloh357 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Well, more often than not, the NT authors quoted the LXX. There are also many allusions to the apocryphal books in the NT. LIke what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinitron Posted July 4, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 140 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2014 LIke what? http://www.biblehub.com/library/swete/an_introduction_to_the_old_testament_in_greek_additional_notes/chapter_ii_quotations_from_the.htm Get about half way down the page and it will show you that even by differing scholarly estimates, the LXX is without question the principal source of where the writers of the NT got their OT quotations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndSeeker Posted July 4, 2014 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 122 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 33 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/17/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2014 As with any book, it needs to be proof read and edited, and with translations its more difficult, as its impossible to have the exact 100% wording from Greek to English.. it just doesn't work that way. It takes more than one try to get it as close as possible. So this needed to take time, and the "English Bible" was being "purified"... Besides i took a little trip back into history and found out a lot of disturbing things... to name one is.. The Tyndale Bible was never completed, The Roman Catholic Church caused him to be a martyr because he tried to give the people the Bible in their own language. At that time, the RCC wanted everyone to rely on them for teaching and interpretation. Later on in the1600's They never wanted the KJV to be printed, thats why they had a counter-reformation and printed the 1610 Douay rheims bible with the corrupted manuscripts that are in all new versions... When these new bibles come out saying "older and better manuscripts" its a lie... The translators of the KJV could have used those manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) but they seen they were corrupt. (Luke 2:33 should say Joseph ...not "father") (2 Timothy 2:15 should say study ...not "do your best" or whatever) those are just 2.. i can provide more...much more but those 2 i memorized... The AUTHORIZED VERSION (1611 A.D.), The seventh Bible Psalms 12:6-7 Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The King James Bible was the seventh English Bible, and it was translated in seven years. Do you think that’s just a coincidence? No other Bible was needed after that. That still doesn't answer the question as to why an all knowing, all powerful God couldn't have created a perfect English Bible the first time. I would point out that you are making claims about the KJV that not even the translators make. King James wanted a new translation because he didn't care for the commentary notes in the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible was the Puritan Bible and the notes in it were Calvinistic and he objected namely the notes in the Geneva Bible that denied the divine right of Kings to rule. The Geneva Bible also angered the bishops because those Geneva Bible notes also denied the right of bishops appointed by the king to govern the church and instead insisted that the Church should be governed by presbyters elected by congregants of each church. The KJV isn't the result of God's inspiring anyone to write it. You need to study history The translators weren't inspired... they were translators translating the inspired word of God. How hard can that be? ............... I agree that i need to study history lol... and i do.. but im already aware of what you mentioned, Obviously Calvinism is false so i wouldn't want that in my Bible... and as far as me knowing history... The reason we are having this discussion is because of the RCC/Jesuits... This whole vile thing traces back to them Do i have permission to state how/why? I realize this is a controversial subject, this should be in that forum.. I'm not ecumenical so i will be very blunt in exposing the RCC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndSeeker Posted July 4, 2014 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 122 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 33 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/17/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2014 The Apocrypha was included, but never recognized fully as canon. That is why the books were not in logical order, as others were, and they were placed by themselves between the Old and New Testament. I would love to see you show how every one of the 66 books of the canon states it is inspired. I am speaking individually. I haven't seen that to be the case. As for divine inspiration, I believe God inspired the translators of the KJV Bible to give us a perfect English translation, at least within the bounds of what is possible, given that there aren't enough English words to translate with absolute perfection from Greek. Can I prove that Shiloh? No, but neither can anyone disprove it, and as I said, at least I don't question scripture being right. This is a belief, and again, the question asked in the OP is why are some people KJV only? I'm not sure if the translators were inspired... maybe, but if i had to answer i would say no. They didn't have to be. The Bible was translated into english enough times by then that they would know what they were doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinitron Posted July 4, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 140 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2014 The commonly known and used KJV in print today is the 1769 Blayney Oxford Edition. It's about the 10 revision. I have 2 of those along with a 1611 and a PCE. I also have the KJ3 and NKJV which are based off of the TR. I also have many other bibles. Honestly I hope one day you will realize that there is no value in the KJV Only Mythology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndSeeker Posted July 4, 2014 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 12 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 122 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 33 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/17/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2014 I couldn't care less Endseeker if you want to attack the RCC, but you might want to ask for advise of a moderator as to how far you can go. I do want to make one observation before you go forward. King James authorized a translation of the Bible to be done, but did not have anything to do with the contents, and neither did the RCC. The translators acted independently and simply went through the TR word by word and translated Hebrew and Greek to English. Nothing you could possibly have to say about how bad the RCC is or accusations over them having a sinister plot to intentionally pervert the Bible will move me in the least. I fully trust the KJV Bible, and do not trust the modern English translations. I will say that from what I have seen, the NKJV of the Bible seems to leave all the verses in tact, and is supposed to be based on the TR, and was not created by the RCC. I prefer the KJV Bible, but my biggest issue with most modern English Bibles is the foundation. I know for a fact the RCC had nothing to do with the KJV.. They didn't want it printed but couldn't stop it thats why they had a counter reformation and printed the 1610 Douay Rheims bible.. all new versions are based off the manuscripts used for that. So in fact they do have a sinister plot to pervert the Bible.. the NKJV doesn't have all the verses in tact.. its based off the TR and also the corrupt text.. mix/match hit/ miss as i said before. Other than that i've 100% agreed with ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 The Apocrypha was included, but never recognized fully as canon. That is why the books were not in logical order, as others were, and they were placed by themselves between the Old and New Testament The argument is that the original 1611 KJV Bible is inspired. Why would God, in His power to inspire, not inform the KJV translators that the apocryphal books are not His word? I would love to see you show how every one of the 66 books of the canon states it is inspired. I am speaking individually. I haven't seen that to be the case. What I said is that there is a general understanding that the writers knew they were being inspired to write what they wrote. I didn't say that claim is explicitly present in very book of the Bible. I don't have to provide evidence for an argument I didn't make. Moses, in the book of Exodus is said to have written all of the words God gave Him. Notice in the Pentateuch how many times "thus saith the Lord." Or "The Lord said unto Moses." Notice how many times the prophets spoke saying "The word of the Lord came unto me saying." Books , Kings, Samuel and Chronicles possess the character of inspiration as their focus is what God said, "thus saith the Lord." It is important to note that the books of the Bible, even if they were not prophetic, but historical (Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles) were written by prophets, like Moses, Jeremiah, Samuel, etc. The Bible tells us that the prophets work was under divine inspiration (II Pet. 1: 20-21). Now some might argue that I Peter. 2:20-21 only applies to prophetic writings such as the books of Jeremiah or Isaiah, but the Bible often in referring to Scripture applies the word "prophecy" in a broader sense to include all of what was inspired and even today, "prophecy" is understood to mean, in the New Testament Church, the concept of preaching God's Word, not simply telling the future. That a writer knew he was inspired doesn't depend on that writer making an explicit claim to that end. We know that there were men who were accredited by God as anointed and it unlikely that they knew they were inspired at one time but not at other times. There are several explicit claims made by Paul throughout His epistles, to being inspired by God. Paul claimed to be writing the commands of the Lord (I Cor. 14:37) In Eph. 3:3-5 claimed that the mystery of the Church which He was writing about came to Him through direct revelation by means of the Holy Spirit. So what He is writing isn't his own idea, but sourced in the Lord and thus inspired by God. In Gal. 1:11-12 Paul states that His Gospel the one which he writes of in His epistles came to Him by direct revelation of Jesus Christ. In I Thess. 4:1-8, Paul declares that his message is given through the Lord Jesus Christ. It should also noted that John claimed to be inspired when he wrote the book of Revelation and in I John 2:7,17 and II John 5. So there is enough internal evidence in the Bible that shows that the writers generally speaking knew they were inspired, whether they make an explicit claim or not. This evidence doesn't exist for the translators of KJV. They make not even the slightest hint that their translation is a product of inspiration. Your claim that it is inspired is not based on evidence, but it based on nothing more than wishful thinking. There is NO evidence that the KJV is an inspired translation. The evidence actually shows that it was commissioned by King James V so that he could have a version that didn't offend him and supported his belief in his own rule was based on a divine right. No, but neither can anyone disprove it, and as I said, at least I don't question scripture being right. That it can't be proven means that it doesn't have to be disproven. You must first have a claim that is considered to be proven in order to "disprove" it. That there is no evidence of any kind that the KJV translators were inspired, that they made no claim that they were operating under the inspiration of God in any shape or form means that you are subjectively assigning a value to the text that just isn't there. All I have to do is provide the evidence that shows what inspiration looks like and then compare that against the claims made by the translators. they attribute the KJV to King James and not to God. If King James had not ordered them to create a new translation, it is unlikely they would have embarked on such an enterprise given that they attribute the KJV to the will of the king of England and not to the King of kings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradox Posted July 4, 2014 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 75 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 13 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) It's quite a conflict. Do you wonder why? If there are versions which are not adulterated, that would pose a serious threat to Satan, because they would expose his plans. Unlike a myriad of interpreted books, which pose no threat at all. Some people are confused about original versions, because there are different origins, some false, some true. How can we tell which ones are true? The main doctrine is that Christ is God made flesh or man. This is the main theme undermined in modern versions. The other themes attacked are, the Divine power of Christ, the virgin birth, the prophecies concerning Christ, prophecies exposing specific kingdoms and the anti Christ, the details of creation, the power of the Word in nature, and the plan of salvation as outlined in the sanctuary service, the application of the blood of Christ (- omitted many times) the mystery of godliness is attacked, the nature of the return of Christ, end time events, and the deceptions of Satan in regards to the Government of God. King James made the 'big mistake' of breaking off the power of the Papacy and ignoring its false Bible based on the Vulgate. It has taken the blood of many innocent people to bring us freedom from religious persecution and tyranny. But now these reformers are worth nothing - along with their Textus receptus! Modern versions based on false original versions support and promote Satanic doctrines and lies, that's why it is very important what we place under our noses. Edited July 4, 2014 by Paradox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinitron Posted July 4, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 140 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted July 4, 2014 So because people died, it's the one and true manuscript? Because it was made against the wishes of the evil Catholics? Who destroyed the native Americans and Hawaiians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted July 4, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 2.00 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted July 4, 2014 So because people died, it's the one and true manuscript? Because it was made against the wishes of the evil Catholics? Who destroyed the native Americans and Hawaiians? Who destroyed the native Americans and Hawaiians? Tell me what that has, even remotely, to do with the OP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts