Fathers Of Modern Versions

[Still Alive]

7 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Wow!  That didn't take long.

Here are the original words from Hort.

#1  He is confounded by why people are interested in Mary-worship and calls it idolatory.  "I am very far from pretending to understand completely the ever renewed vitality of Mariolatry."

#2  He believes those who worship Mary and those who worship Jesus have a commonality in why they do what they do even though Mary worship is wrong.  "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results. Perhaps the whole question may be said to be involved in the true idea of mediation, which is almost universally corrupted in one or both of two opposite directions. On the one hand we speak and think as if there were no real bringing near, such as the N.T. tells of, but only an interposition between two permanently distant objects..."

He is saying that both Mary-worshippers and Jesus-worshippers are in a belief of a mediator.  He doesn't say they are the same in truth or value.

 

Yeah. The mary worship thing shocked me when I first heard of it. The more I read the bible, the odder it looks. And then I discovered there are those that seriously argue that mary was a virgin until she died. The bible is pretty clear she was a virgin until Christ was born, or at least she was instructed to be and there is no reason to believe she violated those instructions. But beyond that? No doctrine depends on even caring, one way or the other.

[Jaydog1976]

I always get a kick out of the whole translation debate. For some reason people can't look past the fact that it is a translation and a translation only. The KJV isn't the original text but only a translation based upon the knowledge of the person or people translating the text. The NIV is a translation based upon the original text found that was used for this translation and it was translated based upon the knowledge of the people who translated it. 

The other thing is how do you know the Textus Receptus was the correct version or the Westcott and Hort version is the correct version? You only have two texts to compare to. What you really need is a third text which will lean to one or the other. Once that text is found then one can say one is more correct than the other. Otherwise it comes down to personal preference as to which translation you use. 

Now that doesn't mean there are some translations that are not good but that can be discussed in another forum. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by Jaydog1976
spelling and grammer

[Still Alive]

I once asked a theology student who was studying both Greek and Hebrew how one could know, for sure, what the bible really says. Her response was that the only way to be sure is to become fluent in the original languages and the culture from which they came. 

So I fall back on Prayer.

[Guest Butero]

4 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

Fortunately for modern readers, there are modern versions that both uphold godly doctrine and come straight from Greek and Hebrew to English, without bias.

Nearly all of them.

Nearly all of them are bad.  Just about every modern English translation leaves out part of the text originally considered canon.  They have pretty much made Mark 16:9-20 apocrypha in the mind of the people that use them.  The majority are good for nothing but to start a fire.  I will stick with the King James Version Bible.  

[Guest Butero]

32 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Yup, anybody can be quoted out of context and made to seemingly say anything one wants them to say.

I hear they are coming out with new technology in digital video where people can be morphed into being shown doing something they never dreamed of doing...like robbing a bank. lol

Are you claiming they never said those things?  

[Billiards Ball]

3 minutes ago, Butero said:

Nearly all of them are bad.  Just about every modern English translation leaves out part of the text originally considered canon.  They have pretty much made Mark 16:9-20 apocrypha in the mind of the people that use them.  The majority are good for nothing but to start a fire.  I will stick with the King James Version Bible.  

People discard the end of Mark (wrongly) for academic reasons (their atheist professors told them so), most believers do not. Atheists claim, by discarding Mark 16's end, that Mark does not include the resurrection. This is typically blind atheism, as the earlier part of the chapter has an empty tomb and the command to gather in the Galil to meet the risen Christ!

It's how you use the Word, reverently or not. We both use it reverently. The KJV-only movement has some information that is not solid. I like solid rocks.

[Guest Butero]

1 minute ago, Yowm said:

I was referring to Jayne's post who made the case of the quotes being out of context. So, they probably said such things but out of context. My remark had to do with context, ask Jayne if they actually said such things.

I don't know about the context either.  I was never influenced one way or the other by things like that in forming my opinions about Bible translations.  

[Guest Butero]

1 minute ago, Billiards Ball said:

People discard the end of Mark (wrongly) for academic reasons (their atheist professors told them so), most believers do not. Atheists claim, by discarding Mark 16's end, that Mark does not include the resurrection. This is typically blind atheism, as the earlier part of the chapter has an empty tomb and the command to gather in the Galil to meet the risen Christ!

It's how you use the Word, reverently or not. We both use it reverently. The KJV-only movement has some information that is not solid. I like solid rocks.

They do indeed have information that is not right, but I have seen enough to be convinced to be KJV only.  Now I don't have a huge issue with the Geneva Bible or the New King James Bible, though I am not crazy about either.  Neither one of them remove portions of the text, and that was the issue that moved me to the KJV only camp.  

[Still Alive]

17 minutes ago, Butero said:

Nearly all of them are bad.  Just about every modern English translation leaves out part of the text originally considered canon.  They have pretty much made Mark 16:9-20 apocrypha in the mind of the people that use them.  The majority are good for nothing but to start a fire.  I will stick with the King James Version Bible.  

There is certainly somc controversy regarding which is more accurate:

https://bible.org/seriespage/part-iii-kjv-rv-elegance-accuracy

 

And I strongly doubt it will be resolved in this thread.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Still Alive

[Guest Butero]

5 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

There is certainly somc controversy regarding which is more accurate:

 

https://bible.org/seriespage/part-iii-kjv-rv-elegance-accuracy

Here is my answer to this.  When it comes down to the text, the Geneva Bible and KJV Bible have the same passages.  The same thing can be said of the NKJV Bible.  The manuscripts used by the KJV translators and the Geneva Bible were what was in use at the time, so they were the best manuscripts.  The ones used by most modern translations are from the Alexandrian and Egyptian discoveries, and they are incomplete.  They leave out portions of the text that was part of the established canon, therefore anyone that accepts them is discrediting the canon.  They have basically opened the text of the canon up for scrutiny, like they did with Mark 16:9-20.  That is hardly the only thing they discredited.  They left many verses and portions of verses out of the text and placed them in footnotes.  As such, any translation that begins with the Alexandrian and Egyptian Text is worthless to me.  I would just throw them in the trash, although in full disclosure, I do have some modern translations around that I use to show the errors in them.  

By the way, I have a 1611 reprint, and I am very much aware of what the translators said about their work.  They weren't dealing with translations at that time that started with incomplete manuscripts.  I am also aware of printing errors in the first edition.  Notice I said printing errors, not translation errors.  Huge difference.  I have a Bible with me now that has at least one printing error.