The Fathers Of Modern perVersions

[KiwiChristian]

1846 Oct. 25th - Westcott: "Is there not that in the principles of the "Evangelical" school which must lead to the exaltation of the individual minister, and does not that help to prove their unsoundness? If preaching is the chief means of grace, it must emanate not from the church, but from the preacher, and besides placing him in a false position, it places him in a fearfully dangerous one." (Life, Vol.I, pp.44,45).

 

Dec. 23rd - Westcott: "My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church." (Life, Vol.I, p.46).

 

 

1848 July 6th - Hort: "One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise...no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical...the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, among whom reading so many 'chapters' seems exactly to correspond to the Romish superstition of telling so many dozen beads on a rosary...still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us...I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants" (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).

 

 

July 31st - Hort: "I spoke of the gloomy prospect, should the Evangelicals carry on their present victory so as to alter the Services." (Life, Vol.I, p.160).

 

 

Oct. 15th - Hort: "I entirely agree - correcting one word - with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Life, Vol.I, p.430).

 

 

Oct. 17th - Hort: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol.II, p.50).

 

 

1890 Mar. 4th - Westcott: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere."

 

[OakWood]

I don't trust any Bible translation made after a certain date (about early 1800s) and I don't trust any Bible that was translated from Vatican texts.

For me it's King James (1611) or the Geneva Bible of 1599. The language is a struggle but it's still English even though it's somewhat archaic.

[Running Gator]

Oh yea!  Another KJV only thread!   

 

[OakWood]

Just now, Running Gator said:

Oh yea!  Another KJV only thread!   

 

Well in my case, KJV and Geneva .... so not really KJV only

[Behold]

3 hours ago, Running Gator said:

Oh yea!  Another KJV only thread!   

 

Check your bible version....... 1st Timothy 3:16.

Look for the word .."God", in "God was manifested in the flesh".

If your bible does not have "God" but has "he" or "the one" or has omitted the verse.....then it has removed the Truth from the Truth, so then, remove that book from your life.

Try a dumpster, for best results, as you want to put it where it belongs.

[Running Gator]

1 hour ago, Behold said:

Check your bible version....... 1st Timothy 3:16.

Look for the word .."God", in "God was manifested in the flesh".

If your bible does not have "God" but has "he" or "the one" or has omitted the verse.....then it has removed the Truth from the Truth, so then, remove that book from your life.

Try a dumpster, for best results, as you want to put it where it belongs.

This is the sort of ridiculousness that drives me crazy about the KJV only debate.  And it also shows the inherent weakness of reading the bible one verse at a time.  

Here is that verse in context..First from the ESV..

¹⁴ I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, ¹⁵ if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. ¹⁶ Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

He was manifested in the flesh,
    vindicated by the Spirit,
        seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
    believed on in the world,
        taken up in glory.

Then the KJV

¹⁴ These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: ¹⁵ but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. ¹⁶ And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The meaning is exactly the same when you read the verse in context.  Both versions it is clear as day that they are talking about God.  The only way this verse is an issue with "Him" vice "God" is if you read it alone, which is not how the bible was meant to be read.  I will contend till the day that I stand in front of the Lord that the worst thing to ever happen to the bible was the addition of verses. 

Not to mention if you look at the Greek, the word for God is not in that verse. 

 

 

[OakWood]

22 hours ago, Behold said:

Check your bible version....... 1st Timothy 3:16.

Look for the word .."God", in "God was manifested in the flesh".

If your bible does not have "God" but has "he" or "the one" or has omitted the verse.....then it has removed the Truth from the Truth, so then, remove that book from your life.

Try a dumpster, for best results, as you want to put it where it belongs.

I've tried it. KJV passes the test, Geneva Bible passes the test. NIV fails the test.

[OakWood]

While we're on the subject, be wary of the Doeuy-Rheims Bible.

Here is the KJV version of Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

and here is the Douey-Reheims version of the same verse

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Notice the change of the wording 'it shall bruise thy head' becomes 'she shall crush thy head'.  - this verse is referring to the seed of the woman (Jesus Christ), but the Douey version has changed the word to 'she' to declare that is the woman who destroys the serpent, not the man. The Doey-Rheims Bible is often known as the Jesuit Bible and the tampering of this verse is a Jesuit attempt to encourage the worship of Mary.

[OldCoot]

On 6/26/2017 at 10:50 AM, OakWood said:

I don't trust any Bible translation made after a certain date (about early 1800s) and I don't trust any Bible that was translated from Vatican texts.

For me it's King James (1611) or the Geneva Bible of 1599. The language is a struggle but it's still English even though it's somewhat archaic.

Then you should also have a problem with the KJV translation.  The translators themselves relied heavily on the Latin Vulgate (Jerome in the 4th century).  They even made notes to each of the translators in the group in Latin.  Their reliance on the Latin is clearly evident in their note to the readers they made in the introduction portion of the original 1611 translation.  Along with the Masoretic Text (Authorized Rabbinical text compiled roughly 7th - 10th Century AD).  The Textus Receptus is simply a compilation of the generally accepted Greek texts done by Erasmus in the 1500's.   There is no original texts used by the KJV translators but compilations done by others and referring to translations done by others, even Tyndale.  The same translation principles used by many version translators today.  The KJV has even had to be revised occasionally to address errors in the text.  No one really uses the original 1611 version anymore.

There is also some evidence that King James wanted to limit the Puritan influence on the texts with the KJV translation. For instance, the original Geneva Bible translated apostasia  in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 as "the departure" (as did many other pre-KJV English translations) whereas the KJV uses "falling away".  Similar in some regards but dynamically different in other regards.  The Geneva version would lend credence to a pre-trib removal of the righteous whereas the KJV subdues that idea with it's "falling away" translation. 

The KJV and Geneva are very reliable English translations, but they are not perfect.  No translation is.  There are just too many nuances in any original language that do not lend themselves to easy translation into another language.  For instance, we in English understand the idea "it is raining cats and dogs" as being a major downpour of rain.  That does not translate well literally into other languages that expresses the same idea we ascribe to it in the English.  One must confer on what others have translated similar phrases into the receptor language.

What I find truly amazing is that some KJV adherents will diss the New KJV as being one of these "damnable" new versions, but it uses the same texts that the KJV folks used and follows the same poetic style of the KJV.  Just the language has been updated.

I personally rely on several English translations for comparison and make some effort to dig into the Hebrew and Greek backgrounds of words in problematic passages.  We each can only rely on the HS to guide us. If one wants to truly understand the original, then go take Hebrew and Greek studies and only use the original languages.  Problem solved.  Well, in part.  There are even debates by those well versed in the original languages about how a word or idea is used.

Edited September 24, 2017 by OldCoot

[other one]

Pondering on that....