[pneuby]

Will, I've been lurking here for a few months and researching this issue. I just want to say that I am appreciative of your ability to debate your position without resort to innuendo, epithets, or outright character assassination.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

The Bible version issue is not a salvation issue.
This central truth is found even in the poorest of bible translations. I do not deny this, but affirm it to be true.

I'm glad to see that you acknowledge this. Tell me, is it really a stretch to agree that there are other truths also "even in the poorest of bible translations"? Indeed, the MV crowd insists there's not ONE missing, though both camps obviously don't agree as to the level of support for those truths in the various versions.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

All these modern versions are put out by men who believe the Hebrew Scriptures have been corrupted in numerous places, and yet they don't agree among themselves as to where nor how.

Wasn't this the same debate faced by the AV commitee? Didn't they have to come to some level of agreement about the texts available to them in their day? Indeed, it's acknowledged that the AV holds no word-for-word allegiance to Erasmus', Beza's, etc. Rather, there is some from each.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

..they constantly refer to "Some Hebrew manuscripts read", "two Hebrew mss. read"; "A few Hebrew mss. read", "Dead Sea Scrolls read", "Some Septuagint mss. read"; "a few late manuscripts of the Septuagint read", "Many other Hebrew mss. read" etc.

Having now viewed the 1611 reproduction that's available, I see the very same thing. Obviously, with MUCH more ms. evidence available in our modern era, there are more such notes in the various MV's.

Since I've not been able to pin this down in searching here, I'll ask. In what year's edition-revision-update were these marginal readings and notes dropped from the AV?

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

ORIGINAL WRITINGS
..both Mr. Price and this confession talk about something they have never seen a day in their lives, and that they all know does not exist, and yet..

Does this not equaly apply to the AV team? Did it take a millenia and half for God to provide us with an inspired Bible? Were the prior translations not also complete, nor inspired?

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

.. both Mr. Scrivenir and James Price are perhaps ignorant as to why many translations have legitimately rendered this phrase as "the word of GOD”. .
There are a variety of readings here with some Greek texts..reading "the word of God".. the well know manuscript D actually reads "the FAITH OF GOD"..The word is literally Kurios, which usually in the N.T. is translated as Lord. ...particular Greek translation, but merely want to show how the Greek language itself works.

It's interesting that you have no difficuty doing so in support of the AV's choice. However, when other's do so in support of the choice/s of their MV's translation team, this is not seen as equivalent.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

In any case, both the Hebrew and the Greek words can legitimately be translated as both God and Lord, and many Bible translators have done this very thing.

Exactly. So, why is it such a great deal when other versions choose another legitimate translation?

[bibleprotector]

In what year's edition-revision-update were these marginal readings and notes dropped from the AV?

This is a sample of what is in the present margins:

Matthew 1:11 "some read"
Matthew 5:15 "the word in the original signifieth"
Matthew 13:33 "the word in the Greek is"
Matthew 17:24 "called in the original"
Matthew 23:23 *Greek*
Matthew 26:26 "many Greek copies have"

Some people seem to think that the margins take away the certainty of what is presented as the main text, and may think that what are in the margins are valid alternatives. However, the margins are actually the supply of the fuller critical picture, variant readings and less accurate presentations of sense, all of which cannot be considered Scripture. The notes may be explanatory, but are not inerrant, unlike the text of the King James Bible.

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by pneuby

Tell me, is it really a stretch to agree that there are other truths also "even in the poorest of bible translations"? Indeed, the MV crowd insists there's not ONE missing, though both camps obviously don't agree as to the level of support for those truths in the various versions.

Hi pneuby. The fake bibles like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV etc. reveal themselves to be bogus imitations of the real thing by the lies, foolish statements and perverted doctrines found in them. Sure, there is a lot of truth, but the lies prove them to be false witnesses.

If you are interested, check out the "No Doctrines Are Changed?" article I put together a couple years ago.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html

Wasn't this the same debate faced by the AV commitee? Didn't they have to come to some level of agreement about the texts available to them in their day? Indeed, it's acknowledged that the AV holds no word-for-word allegiance to Erasmus', Beza's, etc. Rather, there is some from each.

pneuby. This is basically the arguments you present in the rest of your post. Your present way of looking at the Bible version issue is, in my opinion, very humanistic and evolutionary in nature. You have left the sovereignty of God out of the picture and focus on the gifts, methods and abilities of mere men. The end result is that you do not have nor believe in a complete, preserved, and infallible words of God Book that you can hold in your hands or recommend to anyone else. Right? I have stated my beliefs on this before, but here they are again.

Scholars tell us God has preserved His words somewhere in a few thousand conflicting manuscripts which only they can read. Yet they cannot agree among themselves as to which texts to put into their "bibles", nor how to translate the meaning once they agree on the text.

Get 10 scholars into a room and you will come up with 12 different opinions. They try to piece together the original words from the remaining, conflicting manuscripts. Yet God can work through this "scholarly process" Himself much better than they, and place His true words in one volume, because He knows which words are His and which ones are not.

I often hear objections raised by "scholars" who themselves do not believe that any Bible in any language, including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek, is now the complete and inerrant words of God. They ask such things as: "Well, how do you know the King James translators got it right?" or "What was their textual source for deciding which readings were inspired and which ones were scribal additions or omissions?". Implied in their very questions is the idea that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible now, nor ever was one.

Don't the "scholars" who put together the constant barrage of "new and improved, based on the latest findings" type of bible versions that keep coming down the pike go through a similar process, at least in their own minds and on their best of days? Don't the modern scholars get together and pray asking God to guide their efforts, hoping that perhaps their's will be the best bible version to ever appear in print and be "the closest to the originals" of any of them? (This scenario is, of course, giving them the best of all possible motives for their work).

Is it impossible for God to work through a group of dedicated men, though fallen, sinful and imperfect, to bring about the truth of His preserved and perfect words and place them in a real Book between two covers printed on paper with ink, that the children of God can actually hold in their hands and believe every word? Why do the Bible critics mock at the idea that God may have actually already guided through this "scholarly process" and done what they themselves think they are trying to do today? I don't get it.

God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. Psalm 147:19,20: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

He has not promised to give every individual a perfect Bible. Even modern scholars will admit there are inferior translations. Yet using the Jehovah Witness version, or just a gospel tract, someone can come to know the Lord. We are only responsible for the light we have received.

I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude.

In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. He used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It was even taken to space by American astronauts and read from there. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way. It is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of believers to be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God.

Will K

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Thanks, Will.

Originally Posted by pneuby

other truths ... the MV crowd insists there's not ONE missing ..

While very much could be said on this, today I just want to share one quote that I recently read.

Henry Allen Ironside wrote at a different time, and he did have weaknesses that were common at that time about the pure Bible question. Yet he wrote very strongly about this 'essential doctrines' issue - that has now become the fallback position for the versions that are full of many errors and corruptions of various types. Pneuby, your 'essential truths' looks like simply another version of this fallback position.


http://www.plymouthbrethren.org/page.php?page_id=5350
The Key To Spiritual Discernment By: Henry Allen Ironside

I have heard Christians refer to certain precepts in the Scriptures as non-essentials. But we may rest assured there are no non-essentials in our Bibles. “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times” (Psalm 12:6). When people talk of non-essentials in regard to anything in God’s Word, it is well to ask, “Essential or non-essential to what?” Regarding the soul’s salvation, undoubtedly the one great essential is faith in His blessed Son; His finished work alone avails to put away sin and procure peace with God. But if it is a question of what is essential to the enjoyment of communion with God—essential to obtaining the Lord’s approval at the judgment seat of Christ—then it is well to remember that in everything the believer is sanctified to the obedience of Christ. We should seek to imitate Daniel, who had “purposed in his heart” (Daniel 1:8) that he would not defile himself. Paul and Barnabas urged the early Christians “that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord” (Acts 11:23). This is the only way to be kept from defilement. Anything that defiles the conscience breaks the link of communion with God and hinders our advance in spiritual things. There can be no true progress if this inward monitor is not preserved. “Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck” (1 Timothy 1:19) is a solemn word worthy of being carefully pondered.

This is a larger picture that the atomistic modern versionist attempt to justify their corrupt versions because .. they hope .. "essential doctrines" (defined to convenience) can be found in the corrupt versions, trying to ignore the puffery corruption from much leaven.

Now, even just in the Bible discussion, simply one alexandrian error that was placed in the modern version, like the swine marathon from Gerash or Jesus saying he is not going to the feast, creates an 'essential doctrine' problem.

There is no longer the pure word of God as a plumbline for any faith and belief. All of Christendom is reduced to sand and 'personal revelation' once you have eliminated the tangible inspired and pure Bible. If the Bible version that is purported to be God's word is error-laden, how can any Christian stand on the promises within the competing corrupt versions ? The promises of God could similarly be from the same impure types of redactions, scribal errors and textual cornfusions that are the realm of the modern version alexandrian-cult scholar. All is sand.

However, just as importantly, this whole concept of reducing our walk with Jesus Christ to each persons individual 'essential doctrines' (attempted to be enumerated and defended from a doctrinally corrupt, textually incompetent, logically contradictory and eviscerated version) rather than the whole counsel of God through his word, the scriptures .. is modernist pablum Christianity.

Originally Posted by pneuby

... other versions choose another legitimate translation?

Even putting aside the terrible errors in translation in the modern versions, there are, by your words, alternate 'legitimate' Bibles that are from very different underlying source texts. Yet, one or the other is full of error. How can a 'legitimate translation' come from a very corrupt underlying source text ? .. Which is what the modern versions have from their alexandrian MSS. If you actually believed that the alexandrian MSS and versions, with obvious blunders and errors included, were the pure scriptures (God forbid !) .. then you would have to totally reject the King James Bible and could never consider any Bible like the Geneva or Tyndale or King James Bible as 'legitimate'.

However, if you see God's pure words in the King James Bible, then you would never be concerned about entertaining the fantasy that corrupt counterfeits are alternate 'legitimate translations'.

Shalom,
Steven

[Will Kinney]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
In any case, both the Hebrew and the Greek words can legitimately be translated as both God and Lord, and many Bible translators have done this very thing.

Exactly. So, why is it such a great deal when other versions choose another legitimate translation?

Hi p. When it comes to the issue of 'legitimate translations', the question to ask is: According to whom? Do we make every man's own mind and understanding the deciding factor as to what is legitimate or not? You effectively end up with No Final Standard, and every man does that which is right in his own eyes.

I am not saying that the perverted versions like the NASB,NIV,NKJV,RSV etc. do not contain much of God's words nor that God cannot use them to some degree. However they all pervert and change literally hundreds of verses and drastically change the meaning of the verses.

Is it a 'legitimate translation' that the NASB teaches that God was DECEIVED in Psalm 78:36 instead of being 'flattered'? or that Christ has "origins" in Micah 5:2 by the NIV?, or that the NIV says God became Christ's Father on a certain day in Acts 13:33 instead of "this day have I begotten thee" referring to the resurrection? or that the fine linen is "the righteousness of saints" has been changed in the NKJV, NIV, NASB to teach that the fine linen is "the righteous acts of the saints"?

All sorts of correct doctrines have been perverted in 2 Peter 3:12 where the KJB correctly states that we are 'hasting unto' the coming of the day of God (we are fast heading towards the already set day of judgment), whereas the NKJV,NIV, NASB have perverted the truth by saying we are "hasting" the coming of the day of God (we are making it come faster to us, and the time is not set).

There are hundreds of verses where the truth has been corrupted by what the scholars call "legitimate translations".

Check out just this one example from the book of Daniel.

Daniel 9:26 "shall Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"

An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

The Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, was killed not for Himself but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood.

There is no verb in the Hebrew text here. It reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí), Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.

Christ was to make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness, as verse Daniel 9:24 tells us. Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isaiah 53:8 - "for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." He must be cut off, but not for himself — not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good, it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."

John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - But for our sakes, and for our salvation."

David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off for the sake of others, not for Himself."

John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation."

However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".

Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statement made by some that "There are no conflicting bibles".

Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."

The Message 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM."

New English bible 1970- "one who is anointed shall be removed WITH NO ONE TO TAKE HIS PART."

Young's - "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."

1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (again not true)

New American Bible - "an anointed one shall be cut off WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY."

Douay 1950 - "Christ shall be slain AND THE PEOPLE WHO DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."

Lamsa's 1933 - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."

The Septuagint (LXX) - "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."

Men like James White tell us that by comparing all the bible versions we get a much better idea of what God really said. Do you think all these bibles have the same general message and clarify the true meaning for us?

This is the type of foolishness being promoted by those who tell us there are no conflicting bible versions and that they all have the same ideas but with different words. This one example from Daniel 9:26 can easily be repeated a hundred times over with many individual verses.

These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one directing the modern versionists. This God seems more than a little confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.

If you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones.

Will Kinney

Hello there I love what I have read from this response. I but only have one question which has been on my mind for along time. There are groups of people advocating for the use of King James Version yet they have very contradicting doctrines e.g the Anglicans who even authorised the it. Please help me becuase it confuses me alot may the Lord bless you abundantly.

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by Beliver2

Hello there I love what I have read from this response. I but only have one question which has been on my mind for along time. There are groups of people advocating for the use of King James Version yet they have very contradicting doctrines e.g the Anglicans who even authorised the it. Please help me becuase it confuses me alot may the Lord bless you abundantly.

Hi believer 2. It should also be pointed out that those who use the multitude of conflicting modern versions also disagree among themselves regarding doctrines. Though many Bible believers (King James Bible only) generally agree on what would be called the fundamentals of the faith (deity of Christ, salvation by Christ alone through His atoning blood, Bible is the infallible words of God (KJB), and the second coming of the Lord Jesus, resurrection of the dead) yet they do differ on other doctrines like electing grace or free will, church government, the role of women in the church, baptism, Lord's supper, etc. So what? This is nothing new and it will continue till the Lord comes.

Though there is some disagreement on what the Bible teaches at least we are agree on what it actually SAYS. The modern versionists not only disagree among themselves about what the various bibles teach but also on what it even says, and not one of them actually believes that he has an inerrant and complete Bible in any language that he can hold in his hands and believe every word. Big difference here.

Will K