Bible Problem

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Solus Christus said:

It refers to the prose, that the way the KIV reads is similar to Bacon’s other works and style. It’s not disputing The God Inspired Nature of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16).

Thanks for the input, and God bless!

[JimmyB]

59 minutes ago, WordSword said:

It’s my understanding that the word “perfect” concerning a translation is mostly in reference to being complete, entire, and plenary. Thus, only translations derived from that majority of extant manuscripts contain all of Word of God (Mat 4:4)! Studying a translation which has much less manuscript evidence cannot affect one’s salvation; but it will affect one’s spiritual growth in the Lord Jesus (Eph 5:14).

The majority text is simply the collection of sources that agree with each other.  However, there are quite a few earlier source documents that differ in their wording, leading one to believe that they are closer to the originals than the majority text.  

Citing 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" is by no means evidence that the majority text is more accurate than earlier sources.

If you look at an excellent modern translation such as the NET you will see that there is a reason it has more than 60,000 notes that accompany the text.  In other words, the majority text is not the infallible word of God.

"The "Majority Text" is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others. There are two published Greek texts which purport to represent the Majority readings -- Hodges & Farstad 1982 and Pierpont & Robinson 1991." 

source: https://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

[Solus Christus]

Because The KJV may or may not have Masonic connections, I don’t make it my go to translation. Paul says, “But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23), and I have doubt about the KJV. Besides it’s Old English is not how we speak anymore, if Gen Zers, Gen Yers, and Millennials are to be reached, “thou art,” and “hither” is not gonna resonate or make sense. 
 

Alternatives I recommend is ESV (English Standard Version, the prose will be more comfortable to KIV & NKJV readers), NASB 1977 or 1995, BB (Berean Bible), BLT (Berean Literal Translation), NIV (New International Translation), NLT (New Living Translation, not to be confused with The Living Bible: A Paraphrase), and The Aramaic Bible in Plain English. 

[Know Jah]

I think any bible we use will basically lead you to Almighty God's intent, even with the seemingly slight errors

[Guest]

It can be trustingly assumed that God's Word would be contained in the right translation, as He would not withhold any of His Words to us. It just has to be plenary first (Mat 4:4), even though the translation isn't perfect; this is how God works--using the sinful for good. He uses believers for good, though the "old man" still indwells them!

[Solus Christus]

21 minutes ago, WordSword said:

It can be trustingly assumed that God's Word would be contained in the right translation, as He would not withhold any of His Words to us. It just has to be plenary first (Mat 4:4), even though the translation isn't perfect; this is how God works--using the sinful for good. He uses believers for good, though the "old man" still indwells them!

I do think it’s interesting that Sir Francis Bacon could have been a free mason, his whole family masons, his friends masons, all are Satanic secret society members and the translation Bacon was involved in has more details about the devil like Ezekiel 28 verse, “Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.” (Ezekiel 28:13). The pipes and taberets in Lucifer are not found in other translations. Coincidence that Satanic Masons were involved in KJV and there I more detail about Satan in the KJV? Hmmm… 

 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Solus Christus said:

I do think it’s interesting that Sir Francis Bacon could have been a free mason, his whole family masons, his friends masons, all are Satanic secret society members and the translation Bacon was involved in has more details about the devil like Ezekiel 28 verse, “Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.” (Ezekiel 28:13). The pipes and taberets in Lucifer are not found in other translations. Coincidence that Satanic Masons were involved in KJV and there I more detail about Satan in the KJV? Hmmm… 

 

I'd say God used him anyway, weather a sinner or not! The KJV and others like it are the only translations containing the entire Bible (God keeps it simple)! The Alexandrian Text types cannot claim to be a plenary of the Word of God. Satan mixed a lot of the truth with error again and got by with it ("Yea, hath God said?" - Gen 3:1).

And no challenge to you personally intended, but it's similar to rat poison; 90% cornmeal/10% arsenic. He always has to mix a lot of the truth with the false (Mat 4:4). Fortunately a translation cannot affect one's salvation; but it definitely affects growth in the Lord Jesus (Eph 4:15). God bless and appreciate your replies! Wishing you His best!!

[teddyv]

4 minutes ago, WordSword said:

I'd say God used him anyway, weather a sinner or not! The KJV and others like it are the only translations containing the entire Bible (God keeps it simple)! The Alexandrian Text types cannot claim to be a plenary of the Word of God. Satan mixed a lot of the truth with error again and got by with it ("Yea, hath God said?" - Gen 3:1).

And no challenge to you personally intended, but it's similar to rat poison; 90% cornmeal/10% arsenic. He always has to mix a lot of the truth with the false (Mat 4:4). Fortunately a translation cannot affect one's salvation; but it definitely affects growth in the Lord Jesus (Eph 4:15). God bless and appreciate your replies! Wishing you His best!!

Since translations are probably less than 1% different from each other (I don't know what the number is) and even less the in doctrinal matters, the claim of less growth with one translation seems wildly overstated.

[Solus Christus]

5 hours ago, JimmyB said:

The majority text is simply the collection of sources that agree with each other.  However, there are quite a few earlier source documents that differ in their wording, leading one to believe that they are closer to the originals than the majority text.  

Citing 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" is by no means evidence that the majority text is more accurate than earlier sources.

If you look at an excellent modern translation such as the NET you will see that there is a reason it has more than 60,000 notes that accompany the text.  In other words, the majority text is not the infallible word of God.

"The "Majority Text" is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others. There are two published Greek texts which purport to represent the Majority readings -- Hodges & Farstad 1982 and Pierpont & Robinson 1991." 

source: https://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

But if the majority of texts say for instance “repent” instead of “do penance” (Jerome’s Latin Vulgate), you go with the majority, because that is manuscripts most of the early churches had, copied, and circulated. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by Solus Christus

[JimmyB]

12 minutes ago, Solus Christus said:

But if the majority of texts say for instance “repent” instead of “do penance” (Jerome’s Latin Vulgate), you go with the majority, because that is manuscripts most of the early churches had, copied, and circulated. 

a) I don't "go with" anything.  I trust scholarship.

b) None of the earliest texts were written in English.  Do you really not know that?  

c)  Jerome’s Latin Vulgate is a Latin translation (obvious!)  "repent" and "do penance" are a translated word and phrase respectively from the source language to Latin to English!

d) "... because that is manuscripts most of the early churches had, copied, and circulated" is poor English. "that is" should be "those are" since "manuscripts" is plural.