King james bible only

[Persuaded]

 

One of my issues with the KJV is that it contradicts itself. That is the translators translated the same passage differently in different places. In the NKJV it has been fixed but I find that most KJV only people I come across do not accept the NKJV.

How can they translate the same passage differently in different places?  If it is in different places, it is not the same passage.  It could be telling a different account of the same thing, but it is not the same passage.  Do you have any specific examples we could consider?

Not same passage, but same word, translated differently in different places. In general the KJV does a pretty good job with this, especially with using the same words from OT passages when they are rendered in greek in the NT. Of course, the same Hebrew word should frequently be translated into different English words when the Hebrew word has various meanings based on context. Some words that they rendered differently give some significant insight when compared to the usage elsewhere. An example I like is "kofar" in Gen 6, where it is translated "pitch" in describing the sealing or covering of the ark. Kofar, everywhere else, is translated "atonement". The ark was covered by atonement, and by it was faithful Noah saved.

This isn't an example of a mistake, just an unfortunate choice that doesn't fully convey the meaning. And we miss the puns, double-meanings, and word play that is present in any language, but difficult to pass through a translation filter.

To

[Persuaded]

(Edit is failing me)

... to another poster's point about word for word missing the original intent when it is colloquial or idiomatic, I'd rather work to preserve and understand the original than have the translation too far removed from the original. With any figure of speech, eventually even the translators won't get it. We serve a Jewish God, who chose a Jewish people, and walked the earth as a Jew. I think we ought to work to preserve our Jewish understanding, so that the idioms don't become forgotten. I hear of translators going into tribal areas and trying to retool the scripture to fit their culture and understanding, and I think that's the wrong approach in the long run.

[mikeboll64]

The problem continues to be, these translators chose to use the manuscripts that leave out part of the text in the TR.

Did you ever consider that they're not "leaving things out", but are instead refusing to include the known scribal "additions" that are found in the TR?

I brought this up before, but you seem to have ignored it...... so I'll say it better.

If we have 1500 different Greek mss that include 1 John 5:7, dating from the 2nd century to the 17th century, and only 5 of those 1500 mss have the extra words that are in the KJV, what most likely happened?

Do you seriously believe that 1495 scribes who copied 1495 mss throughout the centuries decided to "leave things out" - and that only 5 of those 1500 scribes decided to put "all the words" in their copy?

And what is your answer when you add in the fact that all 5 of the mss which include those extra words come from the 14th century or later?

And what is your answer when you add the fact that we have 4 different mss (10th, 12th, 14th, and 15th century) that contain those extra words, but have them as a marginal note, and not a part of the scriptural text itself?

Are you beginning to see how those words came to be? They were not in the original by John. They were not in ANY ms from the 2nd century all the way up to the 10th century....... where they were first added as a MARGINAL NOTE by a certain scribe. Then, 3 other times, a scribe included those words - also as a MARGINAL NOTE. Then, sometime in the 14th century, the scribe who produced ms known as 629 took that MARGINAL NOTE and added it into the actual text for the first time.

Yet you somehow believe, based solely on the fact that those words are in the KJV, that those words were original, and for some reason, 4 scribes took them from the text and placed them as marginal notes, and 1495 scribes refused to include them at all. But then, in the 14th century, one scribe secretly came up with John's original, and included those words back into the text where they belong.

Do you seriously not see how irrational that thinking is? And for what? Because you have a man-made desire to insist that one particular man-made translation of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures is the only "perfect" one?

[Guest shiloh357]

This is an attack on God's bible found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the KJV.

Trinitron, the KJV was not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls...

[Qnts2]

 

 

 

Age is generally better in manuscripts but age is not necessarily a factor in translations.

 

A translation is only as good as the skill and knowledge of the translators, as well as the source(s) used to translate from. So, other the skill, the next important factor is the source.

 

Greek and Hebrew bibles come from manuscripts which are hand written fragments or larger sections. Being hand written, the accuracy of the copy is important. A hand written copy, even by a professional scribe, likely has a couple of scribal errors. A copy of a copy would incorporate the scribal errors of the one being used to copy, and the scribe of the new copy of a copy, is likely to make an error or two. So, in hand copies, the instances of errors can increase the further the copy is from the original. Plus, a hand copy which is not made by a scribe, can contain a persons comments, which could then erroneously be included in the next copy of it. Age does matter when using manuscripts. Ideally, you want one done by a professional scribe, closer in time to the original. The quality of a manuscript is a judgement call, comparing it to other known manuscripts, or even manuscripts written in different languages translated from a now non-existent manuscript, to find variations due to scribal error or accidental inserts or missing text. (when copying a set of lines, sometimes a line can be accidently missed. It is something which our eyes can do).  So, age does make a difference in manuscripts but not in translations.

 

Except you are making assumptions, like there will be mistakes in the copies.  You are also making assumptions that notes were accidentally added into the text, and it should be obvious that is not the case, especially in Mark chapter 16.  You can tell these are not notes about what was written.  It was a continuation of the chapter. 

 

 

I am not making assumptions. I know more about the OT, but have also read there is similar evidence of this happening in the NT.  The process of comparing the manuscripts to compile an accurate Greek manuscript is very interesting. Multiple people who are experts in Greek look at multiple manuscripts to identify scribal errors and determine the originals.  For the OT, there came a time when the Jewish leadership became concerned about the scribal errors, so scholars called Masoretes compared ancient versions, to determine which were scribal errors and then they developed a system of copying, which eliminated the possibility of scribal error. And then required that the only copyists be trained scribes.

 

For Christianity, the printing press helped to eliminate scribal errors, so the mainy risk is that the printed copy in Greek is repeating scribal errors or adding typeset errors. Highly knowledgable scholars have worked to determine the scribal errors. For the OT, in Judaism, 'canonized' versions are still hand copied but now, with the method to eliminate scribal error, if a scribe does accidently make an error, it is easily determined, and the scroll page with the error is disposed of, so it never gets included in the final scroll.  

 

Someone else mentioned the comments in margins which is later included in the text. This is true. Does this caste doubt on our copies of the bible? No. The standard belief is that the originals were inspired. But these variations are few and far between, do not effect the meaning, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who leads us into all truth, born again Christians have an eternal witness.

[other one]

 

 

 

 

Who told you the KJV was "God's bible"?

Who told you any Bible is the Word of God?

 

Hi Butero,

I believe the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures are the written word of God - based on faith. I believe, on faith, that the one who truly did create the heavens, the earth, and everything in them was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

Which sets of manuscripts of the originals to you believe God dictated.   They are not all the same.

 

The originals, of course. But since we do not have access to the original writings, I settle for the oldest ones we have discovered.

It is a known fact that scribes sometimes added their own words to the texts throughout the centuries. So the closest to the originals we can get will be the better (less messed-with) mss.

 

the oldest that we have found may not be the most accurate though.   Old does not necessarily mean more reliable.  The gnostic beliefs floating around may well have tainted a word here and there in some of the older (but not original) manuscripts.   There simply is no way for us to know for sure one way or the other.

 

 

My question is, "Does every single word of the Bible have to be God Breathed to get across the information introducing us to the Father and learning the way to salvation and have access to him???"      Are we doing damage to the gospel by debating.

 

Question:   "Other than some of the latest translation with very obvious agenda's do any of them corrupt the gospel past learning the knowledge that leads to salvation.      All of them have places that don't really transfer what the original writer is trying to say from the lack of English words to do so without using paraphrasing which most people say they don't like.

[another_poster]

How can they translate the same passage differently in different places?  If it is in different places, it is not the same passage.  It could be telling a different account of the same thing, but it is not the same passage.  Do you have any specific examples we could consider?

Will try to remember to look up passages another time. Having a bad day so was hoping there might be some people in chat but alas with time difference there is not. The NT quotes scripture from the OT several times especially in the gospels. In many cases there is no real difference in meaning but the words should be identical and they are not. One example where this occours is when Jesus is reading scripture in the temple.

Edited July 10, 2014 by another_poster

[Guest shiloh357]

You can't prove a single word you said. 

I don't need to "prove" what I said.  What I said is part of the historical record and checkable.  You don't have to go to the moon to find it.   The problem is not with me having to prove every word I said.   The problem is that you are helpless to show why anything I said is wrong.   I can't personally prove to you that the sun is 92 million miles from the earth, either.  But I can cite the evidence for that claim.   

 

You seem to think that the validity of my comments rest on my ability to personally prove every word I  say.   But I am just citing what is in the historical record and you have no refutation for that except to throw out a suggestion that history was revised (again with no evidence to support that claim at all).  

 

If what I am saying is wrong, why don't you offer up evidence that demonstrates such?

 

 

BTW, I wasn't being hypocritical at all in regurgitating what others wrote.  If you would notice, when I mentioned the book by Les Garrett, I made light of what he said.  I was just playing your silly game of claiming all the historians agree with you.  I don't trust any of them, including Les Garrett.  The guys you quote, with their so-called references, are only quoting books that agree with them as their sources, and there is no way to prove the things they are quoting is true.  It is worthless tripe.  I guarantee if I went back and checked out the sources of the sources, they would just be quoting other books where someone wrote something they can't prove.  You say a lot based on things you read, but you can't prove any of what you said is true. 

 

But those sources are based on real historical evidence.  Unlike you, they are not just pulling claims out of thin air.  They are not making claims about things that just pop in their head, so your claims don't carry the same weight as theirs.   This is not the case that your claims and theirs operate from the same data and stand on even ground.   You are making claims based on "beliefs" for which you can't provide one shred substance for.  Their claims are based on actual research and experts who have contact with the manuscript evidence and have a measure of authority for saying what they say.

 

Tens of thousands of comparisons?  How does that make one manuscript more reliable than another?  You could have thousands of fragments being compared.  I don't believe anything you have said is true, and I guarantee you can't prove any of it.  If you think you can actually prove it, go for it. 

 

 

If what I am saying isn't true, then show it.  I don't have to prove anything, if you can't refute it.   You can deny what I have said, but without any evidence, my claims stand as true, by default.    The truth is that you can't really debate the issue.  All you have is a presumptuous belief that the KJV is an inspired translation and you have not demonstrated up to this point why that is true.

[Sevenseas]

 

 

 

 

It takes almost 45 minutes for a person's name to disappear off the board when they sign off. 

 

 

My bit of trivia for today.  So that means we are here in name only after we sign off?  

 

Basically yes.  It's also why when it tells you how many people are in chat, the number of people actually in chat is often much less.

 

 

 

Thanks...I did not know any of that

[Sevenseas]

This is an attack on God's bible found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the KJV.

 

 

You do realize that other manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls are actually contrary to scripture?

 

I bet this is all gonna sound real silly one of these days..........

 

Discussions and questions are never a problem.  Shutting everything down presents the problem.  No one has all the answers