TheMatrixHasU71 Posted March 28, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 28, 2017 22 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said: I believe our English translation is an accurate representation of the original autographs. Thus I believe our English translations is the word of God. I however do not believe that any translation carries the same authority as the original autographs Well you certainly could be right on that. But again IMHO it goes back to the Muslim comment. I look upon it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted March 28, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 790 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 878 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted March 28, 2017 32 minutes ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said: I only just noticed you are in Ontario (don't usually pay too much attention to profiles). I am in nova Scotia. It isn't hard to look up other examples of alterations in more modern versions http://jesus-is-lord.com/kjvonly.htm https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefns.htm http://jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/kjb_only.htm http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/300_changes.htm Note on that last site, REM= REMOVED. CHG=CHANGED. It's hard to get worked up about most of these. The word 'sodomite' isn't in the NIV because it's no longer used in everyday English. Instead, we have 'men who have sex with men'. Different words, but the same people being referred to. And a lot of other 'familiar' KJV words (like 'begotten') have been 'changed' for the same reason. What's the point of having a modern translation if you don't use modern English? And most of the "removed" verses and phrases are to be found elsewhere in the New Testament; in other words, they were duplications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted March 28, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, Deborah_ said: It's hard to get worked up about most of these. The word 'sodomite' isn't in the NIV because it's no longer used in everyday English. Instead, we have 'men who have sex with men'. Different words, but the same people being referred to. And a lot of other 'familiar' KJV words (like 'begotten') have been 'changed' for the same reason. What's the point of having a modern translation if you don't use modern English? And most of the "removed" verses and phrases are to be found elsewhere in the New Testament; in other words, they were duplications. Doesn't matter. When you change or remove something you are denying the truth of that passage being changed. http://www.godlovespeople.com/bible/corrupt_versions.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted March 28, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 790 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 878 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted March 28, 2017 8 minutes ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said: Doesn't matter. When you change or remove something you are denying the truth of that passage being changed. http://www.godlovespeople.com/bible/corrupt_versions.htm Sorry, but I just don't see the logic of that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted March 28, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Deborah_ said: Sorry, but I just don't see the logic of that statement. I don't see why not. I am being plenty clear. you cannot add to or take away from the word of God. Because you are pretending to know what is true and taking away what (you think) isn't. And the whole modern English argument really is horridly weak to begin with. A lot of people don't like the KJV just because they cant get past the 'thee's, 'thine's and thou's. Well even people in the 1600s usually didn't talk like that either but the KJ translators recognised that there was a necessity at least in some places in the bible to distinguish between the singular and plural "you" which modern English doesn't do but the archaic terms do. And there really are no words in the Authorised KJV that cannot be understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted March 28, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 28, 2017 22 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said: This happens here to often. People will tell you how wrong you are and all the reasons why your beliefs are of the devil. But when you ask them to defend their position or back up thier accusations they move onto to other dribble and wilder accusation. Ive enjoyed this thread because Matrix accepted my challenge to her position and thus created this thread. And because if this thread I'm in the process of reevaluating my original position on the topic. This is what a forum should be. Great thread Matrix!!! Awww you are sooo sweet (suck up lol just kidding) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted March 28, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 790 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 878 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted March 28, 2017 If changing the words automatically meant changing the truth conveyed in them, we'd never be able to translate anything. The KJV itself would be hopelessly corrupt, and we'd only be able to know the truth by reading Scripture in the original languages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted March 28, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 790 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 878 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted March 28, 2017 Don't have the time to go through all of those, but can address one or two examples; 1) Luke 4:4, part of the Temptation narrative, should be compared with Matthew 4:4 "Jesus answered, 'It is written: "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."'" (Matthew 4:4 NIV) The phrase in bold is absent from Luke, but present in Matthew - which makes a nonsense of the accusation that somebody somewhere has an interest in removing it "completely" from the Bible. 2) Matthew 20:16 This is at the end of the parable of the workers in the vineyard. "Many are invited, but few are chosen" (NIV) makes absolutely no sense in this context; at some stage in copying it has crept in from Matthew 22:14 - where you will find it, even in the NIV. So it is wrong to say that it has been "removed from the Bible". It has not been found in a place where it obviously didn't belong anyway, but is still where it should be. 3) Mark 9:42-48 A passage on Hell, where Jesus quotes a text from Isaiah: "the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:48 NIV) Now in the KJV you will find this verse repeated, a total of three times (verse 44,46 & 48). The NIV and other modern versions have it just once (verse 48). But it IS there - so it is quite misleading to say that "the NIV does not even have this Scripture." Now it would be fair to complain that some verses are no longer in the main text, or are not in all the places where you might expect them to be. But the argument is spoiled by gross exaggeration, to the point where someone like me finds it very hard to take it seriously. Personally, I've never found it to be a problem anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Judas Machabeus Posted March 28, 2017 Share Posted March 28, 2017 1 hour ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said: Well you certainly could be right on that. But again IMHO it goes back to the Muslim comment. I look upon it that way. Unless I am misunderstanding the Muslim postion. Here's why I think it's different. The Muslim believe is based on a language. The Koran can only understood in Arabic. I'm saying that only the physical parchment that the actual aposltes wrote on carry 100% infallible authority. While translations/copies have an extremely high accuracy rate and present the fullness of the word of God. They fall millimetres (since we're Canadian I'll go metric) short of the autographes. So muslim believe that a language is what makes the word of God authoritative (atleast in part) where as I believe that any translation/copy is the word of God (as long as it's based on proper documents). But they are not 100% compared to the autographs. I might be coming across as splitting hairs maybe. But for me I thinks it's different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Noodle Posted March 28, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 573 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 329 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/27/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 28, 2017 KJV is reportedly fraught with translation mistakes. I enjoy The New English Bible with Apocrypha. Bible errors article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts