Riccardo Posted March 31, 2018 Group: Seventh Day Adventist Followers: 4 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 281 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 167 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/25/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2018 13 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said: the KJV (used by SDAs and LDS). I didn't know LDS read the KJV, I thought it was the book of mormon. Tho I'm not up on there belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted March 31, 2018 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 791 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 880 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2018 1 hour ago, KiwiChristian said: 1 Corinthians 6:9. "effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind," removed. Not removed, but translated as "male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders" (1979 edition) or "men who have sex with men" (2011 edition). 1 hour ago, KiwiChristian said: The word "sodomite" is not found in the niv. Why should it be? It's no longer current English usage (in the UK, at any rate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted March 31, 2018 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 791 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 880 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2018 33 minutes ago, Riccardo said: I didn't know LDS read the KJV, I thought it was the book of mormon. Tho I'm not up on there belief. They read the Book of Mormon as well as the KJV (incidentally, the Book of Mormon quotes several passages from the KJV) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccardo Posted March 31, 2018 Group: Seventh Day Adventist Followers: 4 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 281 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 167 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/25/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2018 On 3/30/2018 at 7:41 AM, LadyKay said: The missing parts are in the footnote section of the NIV Bible. Reading "some later manuscripts......." This has been pointed out in some past replies but yet stills seems to not be understood. My old NIV Bible printed in 1983 has a small letter "b" pointing me to the footnote. My research tells me that the KJV added words to the Bible by mistake that should have never been there in the first place. Thus that is why they are not in NIV, but included as a footnote explaining that "some early or later manuscripts say........" All this can be found with a bit of research as I have done. But so many KJV only people are so bent on thinking they are 100% right, they don't want to even try to understand what anyone else has to say. With all of that said. My thoughts are since the NIV is giving me the verse and also showing me how the verse is read in some other manuscripts as it points me to the footnote, It makes sense to me that the NIV gives me the all around understanding of the verse. Hi Sister, Happy Easter, I hope your well, Its a hard one with the different manuscripts. My research has been enjoyable. Im not saying I'm a deep researcher but Iv done my share on this topic more than most & not as much as some. I'm not a fan of the latter found manuscripts, which they say are older, with many thinking that older means more reliable which is not the case. For example the so-called older manuscripts had so many alterations they had been rewritten over many times. ? so there must have been flaws in them prior, were they just trash thrown away before found hundreds of years latter.? Next they were found in a monastery which I'm dubious about. The fact that they are older does not mean that they are older in respect to originality, as they were found in a dry arid climate they would last hundreds of years longer than others that were found, the others would have to be translated much more before deterioration. There is a more to it, but this short version should give a little insight into so-called older being better. Remember satin always wants to distort Gods truth & it will be with subtilise. God bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted March 31, 2018 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 791 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 880 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2018 1 hour ago, KiwiChristian said: I John 5:7-8 denies the trinity. It doesn't mention the Trinity. That's not the same thing as denying it. And you should know that the 'missing' words in I John 5:7 are of highly dubious provenance anyway, and therefore shouldn't be used as a prooftext. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted March 31, 2018 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 791 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 880 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, Riccardo said: Hi Sister, Happy Easter, I hope your well, Its a hard one with the different manuscripts. My research has been enjoyable. Im not saying I'm a deep researcher but Iv done my share on this topic more than most & not as much as some. I'm not a fan of the latter found manuscripts, which they say are older, with many thinking that older means more reliable which is not the case. For example the so-called older manuscripts had so many alterations they had been rewritten over many times. ? so there must have been flaws in them prior, were they just trash thrown away before found hundreds of years latter.? Next they were found in a monastery which I'm dubious about. The fact that they are older does not mean that they are older in respect to originality, as they were found in a dry arid climate they would last hundreds of years longer than others that were found, the others would have to be translated much more before deterioration. There is a more to it, but this short version should give a little insight into so-called older being better. Remember satin always wants to distort Gods truth & it will be with subtilise. God bless Hi brother Older manuscripts haven't been over-written. They just date from an earlier time. The logic goes like this: manuscripts wear out, so copies are made before they fall to pieces. 100 years later, the copy wears out so another copy is made of the copy. And so the process goes on... Each time a manuscript is copied, it's possible for errors to creep in. Things may be left out, or put in accidentally. So as a general rule, the older the manuscript, the fewer errors it's likely to have. It's the newer ones that have the alterations - it's just that if you're accustomed to the 'newer' text, it feels like it's the other way round. Being thrown away doesn't imply that a manuscript was flawed. Worn-out manuscripts may have been thrown away once the copy was made, but not necessarily. Take the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example. They weren't "thrown away" but carefully hidden for safe keeping - so well hidden that they weren't found again for nearly 2000 years! I don't know why you should be suspicious of manuscripts found in a monastery. For 1000 years, the only libraries in Europe were in monasteries. That means that virtually every Biblical manuscript has passed through a monastery at some point in its life. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccardo Posted March 31, 2018 Group: Seventh Day Adventist Followers: 4 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 281 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 167 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/25/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2018 55 minutes ago, Deborah_ said: Older manuscripts haven't been over-written. To my understanding & research they defiantly were not clean copies. God bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry_iain Posted March 31, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 39 Topic Count: 34 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 24,727 Content Per Day: 5.77 Reputation: 20,473 Days Won: 161 Joined: 08/05/2012 Status: Online Birthday: 01/30/1985 Share Posted March 31, 2018 2 hours ago, KiwiChristian said: Certainly, my friend. If, just IF you knew that people are reading the WRONG text and it presents a lie, would you risk upsetting or offending them or tell them the truth? Are you kidding? no crucial differences?! Considering the kjv and the modern versions came from DIFFERENT sources, you see no crucial differences? Sorry, i find that hard to believe. Matthew 5:44 doesnt tell you to pray for your enemies. Matthew 17:21 is REMOVED. This has to do with evil spirits. Why would the niv not want you to know how to get rid of these spirits? Hmm. Matthew 18:11 is REMOVED. This tells us why Jesus came. Matthew 27:35 removes a reference to fulfilled prophecy regarding Jesus. Luke 9:55 another verse dealing with evil sprits is bastardised. 1 Corinthians 6:9. "effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind," removed. The word "sodomite" is not found in the niv. I John 5:7-8 denies the trinity. About your first point: You are putting the cart before the horse. The NIV is not 'the wrong text' nor does it tell lies. Nothing that has been said so far has proven this to me yet. Reading the NIV is not a sin, does not lead people to sin nor have I seen anybody lose their faith or fail to grow because they read they read the NIV I have had many KJV only people quote scriptures that seem different to them. I then go and read the same passage in both versions and, guess what, I always find them saying the same thing. Without exception. You don't have to believe me but it's the honest truth none the less. Surely the overall message is more important than one or two words. In Afrikaans we say "a proper understanding requires only half a word" (rough translation). It's not the words on the page. If the message/s of that passage is communicated (which is the case with most versions) that is surely enough. My dad is a theologian who has been involved in Bible translations. He uses several versions, as do most of the theologians I know personally. I choose to trust them in this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GandalfTheWise Posted March 31, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 24 Topic Count: 40 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,459 Content Per Day: 0.60 Reputation: 2,377 Days Won: 2 Joined: 08/23/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Riccardo said: Hi Sister, Happy Easter, I hope your well, Its a hard one with the different manuscripts. My research has been enjoyable. Im not saying I'm a deep researcher but Iv done my share on this topic more than most & not as much as some. I'm not a fan of the latter found manuscripts, which they say are older, with many thinking that older means more reliable which is not the case. For example the so-called older manuscripts had so many alterations they had been rewritten over many times. ? so there must have been flaws in them prior, were they just trash thrown away before found hundreds of years latter.? Next they were found in a monastery which I'm dubious about. The fact that they are older does not mean that they are older in respect to originality, as they were found in a dry arid climate they would last hundreds of years longer than others that were found, the others would have to be translated much more before deterioration. There is a more to it, but this short version should give a little insight into so-called older being better. Remember satin always wants to distort Gods truth & it will be with subtilise. God bless There are two general approaches Christians take to the established historical fact that there are differences among existing manuscripts. The first approach is to look passage by passage and ask what is the most likely original reading? The second approach is to look at the entirety of the manuscripts and ask which manuscript is the real Word of God? In general, most Christians have accepted a passage by passage approach. Various witnesses are considered. These witnesses include full and partial manuscripts of the NT, quotations (or paraphrases) of passages in the preserved writings of various church fathers, lectionaries (which were the weekly or daily NT readings for churches or monasteries), commentaries by church fathers and others, as well as ancient translations of the Greek NT into other languages (including Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and others). Scholars will consider a particular passage and look and find every occurrence of this passage that they can find in any of these witnesses. They then evaluate which witnesses seem most credible as to which reading was most likely the original. The resulting text that they produce is often referred to as an eclectic text or a critical text. In Europe, the first critical text of the Greek NT was produced by Erasmus in his Novum Instrumentum Omne (which was his new Latin translation with which he included his version of the Greek NT). It was based on 6 manuscripts he had available to him. He later produced more versions including a few more manuscripts he acquired access to. Over the years, as more and older Greek (both full and partial) manuscripts were found and as more other witnesses (lectionaries, quotations in other works, and more manuscripts of translations in other languages) were found, scholars would start to include those in their consideration. Over the years, a minority of Christians have accepted some variation of an all-or-nothing approach based on their belief in a doctrine often referred to as preservation. There are different variations of preservation belief. But in general, it could be described as the belief that God has preserved a word-for-word perfect copy of His Word for people in different generations and language groups. For Christians of this viewpoint, the question is which manuscript (or manuscripts) are the real Word of God and which contain errors. Their main concern is identifying which manuscript (or manuscripts) God has supernaturally preserved His Word in. By logical extension for many people with this belief, this also means pointing out which manuscripts contain errors and should be rejected as not being the perfect Word of God. For those with a passage-by-passage outlook, the presence of imperfect humans in the transmission of scripture is simply accepted in the same manner that we accept congregations, ministries, and individual Christians as being flawed and imperfect but used by God nonetheless. As a practical matter, we come together as a body and humbly learn from each other knowing that we need each other. People with a passage by passage outlook see the various witnesses as the voices of Christians and scholars across the centuries contributing what they used as scripture. They would say that these manuscripts were indeed the actual NT that many Christians had and used across centuries. Minor differences between them yes, but still used by God for those Christians as scripture. For those with a preservationist outlook, God has overcome human frailty by supernaturally preserving a perfect word for word scripture. For them it thus becomes the duty and obligations of Christians to identify that single perfect word for word scripture and reject the others. When reading any source about the text of the Greek New Testament, it is important to note their bias. Do they believe in a passage-by-passage approach or an all-or-nothing approach? For those with a passage-by-passage outlook, they are willing to look at all witnesses and weigh them for a particular passage. They will consider some witnesses more credible than others, but overall, each witness is given a voice at the table to be heard. For those with an all-or-nothing outlook, they will only consider weighing witnesses in their entirety. For them, it is determining which witnesses need to be rejected in their entirety and not considered at all. Once a witness has been rejected, it should not be considered again. As a practical matter, there is a small group of Christians today which hold to a particular variation of preservation belief that one particular iteration of the KJV Bible is the preserved Word of God for all English speaking peoples. For these Christians, it has become a critical matter of both faith and practice that only the KJV be used as scripture. By extension, many of them hold that the particular Greek text used by the KJV translators (one of the iterations of the Textus Receptus) was The preserved Greek text of the NT. As a result, for these KJV preservationists, all Greek manuscripts and witnesses are judged on solely one criteria, do they agree with the KJV and its underlying Greek text or not? To the extent a Greek manuscript disagrees with the KJV and its underlying Greek text, it is to be rejected. For all of their discussing manuscripts, it is ultimately about only one issue which is whether a particular manuscript agrees with the KJV or not. Similarly, there is a small group that holds that a particular iteration of the Textus Receptus (frequently the one used by the KJV translators) is the preserved Word of God. They are willing to accommodate new English translations based on that particular Greek text. However, they too seem to evaluate various manuscripts and witnesses solely on the basis of their level of agreement with the iteration of the TR that was used by the KJV translators. In spite of their appearance of openness to discussing historical matters, all of their judgements about the credibility of ancient witnesses boils down to their belief that a particular iteration of the TR is the preserved word-for-word Greek New Testament as penned by the original writers. Some of the KJV-preservationists are quite extreme in their views. I've encountered a few that even recommend burning non-KJV bibles. It is often people with that level of zeal and outlook that produce large amounts of material on websites "proving" why old manuscripts are at best error-ridden and at worst satanically influenced. They go through various English versions of the Bible comparing them to the KJV version. Some of them firmly believe that many of these differences are due to the devil corrupting God's Word. Many of them have produced elaborate and detail tables of differences along with accusations about how the devil supposedly influenced those changes. For these Christians, it has become a critical matter of faith to defend the KJV from the devil's attacks and promote it as the real Word of God. Of necessity for them, they must always proclaim how and why they believe that there are problems with all ancient manuscripts and witnesses which did not lead to the KJV. In my opinion, the issue comes down to this, did God use imperfect human beings in the transmission of scripture through the centuries or did He supernaturally preserve a word for word scripture? For those who believe God used imperfect humans (in the same way He uses imperfect humans in all types of ministries), the question becomes one of considering passage by passage what each different group of Christians over the centuries used as scripture. For those who believe in preservation, the question becomes determining which manuscript or translation is the preserved Word of God. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyKay Posted March 31, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 12 Topic Count: 385 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 7,692 Content Per Day: 1.93 Reputation: 4,809 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/28/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2018 5 hours ago, Riccardo said: Remember satin always wants to distort Gods truth & it will be with subtilise. God bless You were very kind in your words and I thank you for that. If I may speak from a personal side. Having read the NIV, I have never come across anything in there that in anyway seem to be of the dark side. No scriptures have I ever read from the NIV has directed me to go against God's teachings in anyway. I grew up in the 70's and 80's. I had a KJV Bible until around the late 70's when I got an NIV children's Bible that the Sunday School teaches passed out in church to all the kids one Sunday. I loved that Bible and read it over and over again. I still have it somewhere in my box of keep safe things. Later on I got an NIV Bible for a graduation gift from my church. I used that one for 20 years until it started to fall apart from use. In all those years of reading the NIV, I have never found anything that pointed to satin having a hand it any of it. Nothing that would take me off my path and lead me astray. Nothing that was ever "water down" or change to make the reader "feel happy", as many on here have accused it of doing so. It states clearly what is sin. The same things that are sins in the KJV are pointed out as sin in the NIV as well. Just as the KJV tells you how to live a Christian life. So dose the NIV. Is the NIV a perfect translation? No I do not think so. Even the people who put it together do not think that it is perfect. But I do not believe in anyway that it is of satin's making. Once again thank you for speaking kindly to me. I think I have beat this topic to death now. God Bless and have a Good Day. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.78a316778a2b75f1377c52957d74a45f.jpg)
Recommended Posts