Guest Butero Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 On 4/30/2016 at 6:46 AM, Deborah_ said: I can't quite get my head round this. Erasmus "leaves out" a verse from his text (a verse of very dubious provenance), and you hold Luther responsible? He couldn't translate a sentence that wasn't there! I speak French, German and a bit of Russian and Welsh as well as English. My German is fairly good, but I wouldn't attempt an old translation like Luther's; in any case, I read the German Bible to improve my German, so a 16th century version wouldn't be much help for that. I use a modern German translation, but the Luther Bible is available online, and I checked the info before posting it. As far as I know, there is no controversy over old v new translations in any language other than English. It seems to be purely a KJV effect. If you can read French, German and Russian, as well as Welsh, then it seems strange to me you would have difficulty with the KJV Bible. That should be a piece of cake for someone like you. I believe that verse belongs in the Bible. It was clearly found in both the Latin Vulgate and some Greek manuscripts. Luther choosing to ignore those sources means nothing to me, given the fact this is the same heretic that claims the book of James shouldn't be in the Bible. I consider Luther a false teacher. I know the owner of a small chain of Christian bookstores, and he will only sell KJV Bibles. He told me the same controversy exists with the Spanish Bible. He only sells a Spanish Bible that was translated from the Textus Receptus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 On 5/2/2016 at 10:57 PM, ccfromsc said: Several people has told you already including me. It was in some Vulgate manuscripts. it is not in the TR and others. It originated around the 12 century. Here is a fact even manuel does not even realize the Alexandrian texts he fears so bad are about 97-98% the same as the precious TR. In fact your TR borrows from the Alexandrian too! Book of Jeremiah was originally around 35 chapters from the Jewish or Hebrew version. The full version came from Egypt. Why? Because Jeremiah was kidnapped if you remember and taken there. His scribe Baruch finished the writing for him. Later the two versions were combined. For you and Manuel who scream about the KJV so much you both know so very little on how the bible came about. Why is that? Reading the KJV Only line? Since you don't find having a closed canon important, I understand why 97 to 98 percent the same is acceptable with you, as well as removing part of the established text. That is not acceptable with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 On 5/2/2016 at 11:16 PM, ccfromsc said: Heck with this I am going back to this again: Do you realize the KJV says not once but twice "there is no God?" What good does it do to go back to that when you have already admitted you were trying to bate me into calling you something I am not supposed to call a brother? I am able to call an atheist or non-believer that name, but not a brother in the Lord, so what is the point? The modern translations say the same thing, but in context, none are making any claim but that a fool says there is no God. You only make yourself look silly bringing that up again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 On 5/2/2016 at 3:42 PM, ccfromsc said: The point with the "there is no God" is to show the nuttiness of the KJV Only. They take one item and stay on it irregardless of whether another version says it. You have no point. We all know what all the translations are saying in context in those verses. I am not even accusing the modern English translations of claiming "there is no God," because in context, none are saying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 On 5/2/2016 at 3:55 PM, bopeep1909 said: 1 Corinthians 1:18 "those who are being saved" and "those who are saved". No difference. You are grasping at straws. This is a huge difference. Are you saved? Not according to the modern English translations. You are only in the process of being saved. The only people that are saved are those who are accepting what is written in the KJV Bible. Don't take me beyond what I am saying. I am not saying that deluded individuals who insist on defending the indefensible as you are cannot be saved, but according to your own translations, it says you are not fully saved, and you are saying you agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 On 5/2/2016 at 5:07 PM, hmbld said: Right, and if you read the last post he added, "The point with the "there is no God" is to show the nuttiness of the KJV Only. They take one item and stay on it irregardless of whether another version says it." I believe he agrees, but is trying to make a point about people who get stuck on Kjv only regardless if other versions agree, they still can only see Kjv only. I think I understand what he is trying to say, but it does not seem like a good argument in my opinion, it is too easy to miss what was intended, and get stuck arguing about the 4 words he picked out. He also admitted he was trying to bate me into committing a sin by calling him a fool. That still makes no sense, because in order for me to be able to call him a fool, he would have to be stating that he believes there is no God. What he has done instead is falsely accuse the KJV translators of saying that, but another problem he has is the modern translations say the same thing. I am not going to accuse any translations of saying something so obviously false. This is a dangerous game, and it is such a poor comparison, he looks nutty. I would also point out that when you intentionally place a stumbling block in front of someone, you are committing a sin by doing so, and had I fallen into that trap, he would have shared in my guilt. I would have been in danger of hell fire, but so would he. This kind of tactic makes those supporting modern translations look desperate. If cc thinks this is helpful to him, so be it, but I wouldn't recommend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted May 3, 2016 Share Posted May 3, 2016 On 5/2/2016 at 6:06 PM, other one said: you can be saved and never see a Bible... I agree. There are people that have been saved in places where a Bible is illegal, and they cannot obtain one. This is not a salvation issue. It is about whether or not we can trust the Bible. It is about whether or not the canon is closed. CC has come out and questioned whether or not we really have a closed canon, and I have to ask that same question. The moment one verse was removed or added to the text, we no longer have a closed canon. You would have to be blind and in a complete state of denial not to see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmbld Posted May 4, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,491 Content Per Day: 0.54 Reputation: 1,457 Days Won: 1 Joined: 10/23/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/02/1971 Share Posted May 4, 2016 26 minutes ago, Butero said: I agree. There are people that have been saved in places where a Bible is illegal, and they cannot obtain one. This is not a salvation issue. It is about whether or not we can trust the Bible. It is about whether or not the canon is closed. The moment one verse was removed or added to the text, we no longer have a closed canon. You would have to be blind and in a complete state of denial not to see that. Ok, I know you are much more studied on this subject than I, yet I have read a little on this subject, I present to you another excerpt from Got Questions, I know how you love that site! lol "Erasmus, a 15th-century Dutch theologian, working at great speed in order to beat to press another Greek New Testament being prepared in Spain, gathered together what hand-copied Greek manuscripts he could locate. He found five or six, the majority of which were dated in the twelfth century. Working with all the speed he could, Erasmus did not even transcribe the manuscripts; he merely made notes on the manuscripts themselves and sent them to the printers. The entire New Testament was printed in about six to eight months and published in 1516. It became a best seller, despite its errors, and the first printing was soon gone. A second edition was published in 1519 with some of the errors having been corrected. Erasmus published two other editions in 1527 and 1535. Stung by criticism that his work contained numerous textual errors, he incorporated readings from the Greek New Testament published in Spain in later editions of his work. Erasmus’ Greek text became the standard in the field, and other editors and printers continued the work after his death in 1536. In 1633, another edition was published. In the publisher’s preface, in Latin, we find these words: “Textum ergo habes, nun cab omnibus receptum,” which can be translated as “the [reader] now has the text that is received by all.” From that publisher’s notation have come the words “Received Text.” The Textus Receptus became the dominant Greek text of the New Testament for the following two hundred and fifty years. It was not until the publication of the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament in 1881 that the Textus Receptus lost its position." You are stating canon is closed, but only if one relies on the Textus Receptus, correct? And this received text is based on manuscripts dated in the twelfth century. Ok, there are older manuscripts, but setting that aside, even this Textus Receptus has undergone revisions, corrections, and the original Kjv had notes in the margins indicating they they translated from manuscripts that did not all have the same verses in them, so they noted that they did not know if a verse should be included or left out. When was canon closed, after all these revisions? You stated " The moment one verse was removed or added to the text, we no longer have a closed canon." But there is evidence the Kjv did this with their revisions, so I ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 1 hour ago, hmbld said: Ok, I know you are much more studied on this subject than I, yet I have read a little on this subject, I present to you another excerpt from Got Questions, I know how you love that site! lol "Erasmus, a 15th-century Dutch theologian, working at great speed in order to beat to press another Greek New Testament being prepared in Spain, gathered together what hand-copied Greek manuscripts he could locate. He found five or six, the majority of which were dated in the twelfth century. Working with all the speed he could, Erasmus did not even transcribe the manuscripts; he merely made notes on the manuscripts themselves and sent them to the printers. The entire New Testament was printed in about six to eight months and published in 1516. It became a best seller, despite its errors, and the first printing was soon gone. A second edition was published in 1519 with some of the errors having been corrected. Erasmus published two other editions in 1527 and 1535. Stung by criticism that his work contained numerous textual errors, he incorporated readings from the Greek New Testament published in Spain in later editions of his work. Erasmus’ Greek text became the standard in the field, and other editors and printers continued the work after his death in 1536. In 1633, another edition was published. In the publisher’s preface, in Latin, we find these words: “Textum ergo habes, nun cab omnibus receptum,” which can be translated as “the [reader] now has the text that is received by all.” From that publisher’s notation have come the words “Received Text.” The Textus Receptus became the dominant Greek text of the New Testament for the following two hundred and fifty years. It was not until the publication of the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament in 1881 that the Textus Receptus lost its position." You are stating canon is closed, but only if one relies on the Textus Receptus, correct? And this received text is based on manuscripts dated in the twelfth century. Ok, there are older manuscripts, but setting that aside, even this Textus Receptus has undergone revisions, corrections, and the original Kjv had notes in the margins indicating they they translated from manuscripts that did not all have the same verses in them, so they noted that they did not know if a verse should be included or left out. When was canon closed, after all these revisions? You stated " The moment one verse was removed or added to the text, we no longer have a closed canon." But there is evidence the Kjv did this with their revisions, so I ask? First of all, I need proof of everything they are claiming. Here is what I need. 1. I need the exact date and documentation to prove the exact date the canon was established. 2. I need to see the exact books and contents of what was established as the canon. This article to me is worthless tripe. Anybody could make up so-called historical facts, and I know from reading different articles from different places they don't agree. I don't accept any of this as valid without proof. But here is the bigger issue. In order to try to defend the modern translations, you have to continue an assault on the KJV Bible, and even the manuscripts that became the T.R. If I was to accept what you said as fact, and I don't, I would have no reason to believe the Bible is even the Word of God. I would have to start looking at it as a bunch of letters that someone decided would make a nice volume to call God's Word and nothing more. I would have no reason to believe anything in it, including the story of Jesus and how he came to die on a cross for our sins. If I cannot accept a closed canon, looking at this objectively, I might as well toss the Bible aside and take the attitude of who cares if anyone reads it. Everyone would just have to decide for themselves how they want to believe God to be. Everyone would have to decide on their own standards based on their conscience, which is where I believe we are heading anyway. Just think about this for a moment. Ask yourself if you believe that article is credible. If you do, why in the world would anyone waste their entire life studying such a book and trying to live by it? Why should we care that the Bible is easy to read, when it may not be God's Word in the first place? Just from the standpoint of using logic and reasoning, I honestly don't know why anyone who holds to such views cares one whit about reading the Bible or hearing people preach or teach from it. If it is no more reliable than this, who needs it? I mean that in all sincerity too. I am not being sarcastic. Now you have a new challenge. Explain why we should believe such an untrustworthy Bible? How do we know it wasn't just the creation of Erasmus to control the masses as the unbelievers claim? There is a guy I was talking to recently who was having doubts about Christianity and the Bible. I told him why I believe the Bible is the Word of God, and why I believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. If you ever convinced me the things you say are true, I could never say with any confidence anything to do with Christianity is for real, because our knowledge of Christ has been passed down through the pages of the Holy Bible. We are believing the witness of those who walked with Jesus and who were part of the early church. What if the Bible is just a bunch of letters thrown together, and not God's Word? What if Erasmus was wrong in the books he included in the canon, and perhaps the gnostic gospels were the true Words of God? Who is to say? I don't know how a thinking person can be a Christian and believe what you say you believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccfromsc Posted May 4, 2016 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 58 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 17 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/16/2008 Status: Offline Share Posted May 4, 2016 On 5/2/2016 at 4:22 PM, other one said: the KJV does not state that there is no God...... it reports that only a fool says there is no God..... you are perverting scripture.... and there are long term consequences for that... One more time.... that is how the KJV Only with their agenda do things. That is the whole point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts