Guest Butero Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 6 hours ago, Deborah_ said: 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. The manuscripts that were used when the Geneva Bible and KJV Bible were translated were those being used by the church at the time, so they were the accurate ones. The ones found later on known as the Egyptian and Alexandrian manuscripts were copied in a hurry and portions of the text were inadvertently left out. The modern English translators came along and used them as the basis for their Bibles, and they also left out portions of the text. Never mind that those verses were established in the Biblical canon, and in both the Geneva Bible and the KJV Bible. I would also point out that in the modern English translations, even though they all claim to use those manuscripts as their basis, some will throw in a random verse another leaves out. The only possible reason to do that is to make them differ for copywrite reasons. What is absurd is the idea that we are fighting over modern English verses old English, like the reason some of us are KJV only is because we simply like the sound of old English. Our problem with the modern translations is that they leave out portions of the established text, they discredit others, and they change the meaning of others. If the only issue was old English verses modern English, I wouldn't have been willing to admit the NKJV Bible does faithfully include the entire text, and be willing to say that if you are going to use a new translations, you should use that one. Why not? You have a translation in modern English that doesn't remove part of the text and put it in footnotes. What is wrong with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 1 hour ago, LadyKay said: 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. I will tell you what makes it of Satan. It is the fact it brings into question portions of the established text, meaning we cannot trust the canon. If as the result of recent discoveries, we can determine this verse shouldn't be there or that passage was added, that makes everyone question what else could be in error. It makes us look at the Bible as not fully trustworthy. For the casual reader, these things may not matter, but to those who place great importance on the Bible being 100 percent accurate, they do matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Your closest friendnt Posted March 31, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 18 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 7,894 Content Per Day: 2.41 Reputation: 2,778 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/05/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2018 On 3/27/2018 at 2:42 AM, KiwiChristian said: - The Teen Study Bible gives a standard dictionary definition of "sex", but the "alternative definition" is disgusting. Remember this is aimed directly at impressionable Christian teenagers. The "alternate definition" (1993 edition) for "sex" is "—another fun thing mean adults tell teenagers to keep away from." The 1998 edition of Zondervan’s Teen Study Bible changed the "alternative definition" for "sex". It took five years – but hallelujah, somebody at Zondervan finally woke up (or maybe somebody actually read a King James Bible. . . it COULD happen. . .) Of course, the "alternative definition" in the 1998 lacks much to be desired when compared to God’s serious warning of fornication. The 1998 "alternative definition" for sex reads "a three-letter word with some really l-o-n-g consequences". ) - Another troubling "alternative definition" is given for "prayer". The great preacher John Wesley said, "God does nothing but in answer to prayer". The Teen Study Bible’s "alternative definition" for prayer? "prayer —talking to the ceiling and wondering if anybody’s listening.". - The Teen Study Bible "alternative definition" for "church" is "what you have to get dressed up for so you can be bored for an hour at a morning service". Now, that is really helpful to get teenagers interested in church? The 1998 edition of the Teen Study Bible changed the "alternative definition" for witnessing to "telling your friends about God and sometimes having them laugh at you." Don't worry 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: 0.24 Reputation: 881 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Butero said: The manuscripts that were used when the Geneva Bible and KJV Bible were translated were those being used by the church at the time, so they were the accurate ones. The ones found later on known as the Egyptian and Alexandrian manuscripts were copied in a hurry and portions of the text were inadvertently left out. The modern English translators came along and used them as the basis for their Bibles, and they also left out portions of the text. Never mind that those verses were established in the Biblical canon, and in both the Geneva Bible and the KJV Bible. Actually, you don't know this. The manuscripts we have dating from nearest the time the canon was decided are the ones without the disputed texts. So these verses have probably been added since then. Most of them of course are duplications of other verses, so it has made no practical difference whatsoever. 1 hour ago, Butero said: Our problem with the modern translations is that they leave out portions of the established text, they discredit others, and they change the meaning of others. If the only issue was old English verses modern English, I wouldn't have been willing to admit the NKJV Bible does faithfully include the entire text, and be willing to say that if you are going to use a new translations, you should use that one. Why not? You have a translation in modern English that doesn't remove part of the text and put it in footnotes. What is wrong with it? What's wrong with the NKJV? Absolutely nothing. But then there's nothing 'wrong' with the NIV either. The footnotes don't bother me in the least, just as the old English of the KJV doesn't bother you. I use the NIV (although I have other versions at home) because that is my favourite one; in 40 years I haven't found another that I prefer. And after 40 years, I see no good reason to change. 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: 1.92 Reputation: 4,809 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/28/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2018 2 hours ago, Deborah_ said: What's wrong with the NKJV? Absolutely nothing. But then there's nothing 'wrong' with the NIV either. The footnotes don't bother me in the least, just as the old English of the KJV doesn't bother you. I use the NIV (although I have other versions at home) because that is my favourite one; in 40 years I haven't found another that I prefer. And after 40 years, I see no good reason to change. The King James only people seem to be hung up on these things called "foot notes". Maybe they don't understand what "foot notes" are. They just keep going on about how the NIV cut verses out that are found in the KJV. I do not know what NIV Bibles they have read. I am thinking not any and that most of them are just going by what other people have told them about the NIV. But the NIV I have clearly points the way to a "foot note" at the bottom of the page to include any verses that were found in the KJV. So all their talk about how the NIV left out verses and all of that is just not so. I have tired to explain that but they just keep going on about how the verses have been cut out. Well I know you know all of that. But it is nice to talk to someone who understands what I am talking about. I feel so out of place on here sometimes. Anyway, thanks for the chat. Peace to you. 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: 1.92 Reputation: 4,809 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/28/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2018 13 hours ago, Butero said: Another major problem with the NIV is the fact that they intentionally perverted portions of the text to make it gender neutral. What NIV have you read that has done this!! My NIV Bible is not gender neutral ! While I do seem to remember hearing there was at sometime a gender neutral Bible put out, it is not every NIV Bible and certainly not the NIV Bible that I have! 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 10 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said: 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? I basically agree with all your comments. Since the KJV version, the understanding of translating is better, but this is only on matters of no consequence were translators assumed what a word may have been in general discussion. All bibles translate the love of Jesus & the basic principals of the bible. But there are addition in some bibles like the NIV that are not in manuscripts of either. Then there's those that translated the so called older manuscripts, Westcott & Hort, if you look into their back ground, their beliefs & what they were into it should alarm you. They also were on the committee that passed the so-called findings & influencing the others. I think we are getting slightly of the topic here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted April 1, 2018 Share Posted April 1, 2018 9 hours ago, Deborah_ said: Actually, you don't know this. The manuscripts we have dating from nearest the time the canon was decided are the ones without the disputed texts. So these verses have probably been added since then. Most of them of course are duplications of other verses, so it has made no practical difference whatsoever. What's wrong with the NKJV? Absolutely nothing. But then there's nothing 'wrong' with the NIV either. The footnotes don't bother me in the least, just as the old English of the KJV doesn't bother you. I use the NIV (although I have other versions at home) because that is my favourite one; in 40 years I haven't found another that I prefer. And after 40 years, I see no good reason to change. The NIV intentionally changed the text to make it gender neutral, which goes against all the manuscripts. All of them. That is something wrong with the NIV. I know what I am saying is true because the Geneva Bible and the KJV Bible both agree, and it doesn't matter how old the parchment was that was found in the Egyptian and Alexandrian discoveries. The fact of the matter is, the verses being left out were considered canon and the canon was supposed to be closed, which means to come along after the fact and remove portions of the text re-opens the canon. It discredits it. Not all the verses are duplicated in other verses. They completely discredit Mark 16:9-20, bringing into doubt part of the canon and making this passage apocrypha to some. The footnotes may not bother you, but they do bother me. It doesn't matter to me what version you use personally. I just know I won't use the NIV, and I warn others against it. I consider it a counterfeit Bible. If I see someone post verses from it, I ignore the text they use. I don't look at them as being posted from a real Bible. That doesn't mean I want all NIV Bibles rounded up and destroyed. We have freedom of religion, and I think you should be able to keep your NIV and read from it if you wish. I just won't use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted April 1, 2018 Share Posted April 1, 2018 6 hours ago, LadyKay said: What NIV have you read that has done this!! My NIV Bible is not gender neutral ! While I do seem to remember hearing there was at sometime a gender neutral Bible put out, it is not every NIV Bible and certainly not the NIV Bible that I have! It is not the older ones. When the NIV first came out in America, they knew the idea of a gender neutral translation wouldn't go over, so they didn't put it out that way, but eventually, they did. It came out as the TNIV and then because of bad press, they changed it back to calling it the NIV. By the way, I have in my possession an NIV Bible, and I have explained my objections to having verses put in footnotes. Some people don't read footnotes, and even if they do, the idea they move the text to footnotes discredits the verses. They don't move all of Mark 16:9-20 to footnotes, but they discredit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiChristian Posted April 1, 2018 Group: Members * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 176 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 870 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 330 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/23/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/22/1968 Author Share Posted April 1, 2018 22 hours ago, IainL said: About your first point: You are putting the cart before the horse. The NIV is not 'the wrong text' nor does it tell lies. Yes, it is. It is based on the alexandrian text and westcott and hort. 22 hours ago, IainL said: 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 sigh. where did i say it was a sin? It leads people to a false Christ. 22 hours ago, IainL said: 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. Then address the quotes i made. Tell me, how is "shrine prostitute" the same as "sodomite"? 22 hours ago, IainL said: Surely the overall message is more important than one or two words. one or two words? we are talking about 5219 words removed and many MAJOR words removed or changed. 22 hours ago, IainL said: 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...
.thumb.jpg.78a316778a2b75f1377c52957d74a45f.jpg)
Recommended Posts