| Poster | Thread | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
I've been reading alot about manuscripts that are now surfacing from the Koptic and Northern Africa region.Many say that whats being translated is more precise and accurate than what we have now, any insight?
I think I'll wait until you can give us some more details.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
|  2005/2/2 19:29 | Profile | dohzman
Member
Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132
| | Re: | | When I get back in 2 weeks I'll do better justice to this post and give you further details as to what I've read ---heard--and the articles ,,,, I'll try to find a site where they are so you can look them up and see what you think.
_________________
D.Miller
|
| | 2005/2/2 22:18 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
Me too, although we outgrew our 'house' some time ago and built a meeting hall by the side of it. Our instincts and practices are still 'house church' in the main.
Our philosophy is when we get too big to meet in a home, we split into two house churches... and eventually we end up with a network of house churches. We now have a small network. The network is overseen by a group of elders. We base our leadership on what we believe the Bible shows. No "pastor" leader... no "one man show"... plurality of leadership is what we see in scripture. Elders.
We have some good teachers... but they are just that... teachers.
If we dont split into other house churches, then we would do what you are doing... we'd buld a hall. Nothing wrong with that, but what I have witnessed is that there is a natural tendancy to continue to morph more and more into a westernized version of church... and before long all the reasons to "house church" have been forgotten... and the church has become just like every other church down the street.
Thats just my viewpoint on house church expansion.
Krispy |
| | 2005/2/3 9:22 | | IRONMAN
Member
Joined: 2004/6/15
Posts: 1924
IN HEAVENLY PLACES WITH JESUS
| | Re: | | I have a question to ask an dI hope someone will be able to help me out with this. What difference does it make which text I am using? I've got a good news and an NIV bible (which has lots of good commentary I think) Is there a difference in the annointing or the accuracy of the translation and if so how does that affect my life as a Crhistian.
_________________
Farai Bamu
|
| | 2005/2/8 10:46 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
I have a question to ask an dI hope someone will be able to help me out with this. What difference does it make which text I am using? I've got a good news and an NIV bible (which has lots of good commentary I think) Is there a difference in the annointing or the accuracy of the translation and if so how does that affect my life as a Crhistian.
There is a big difference between the underlying greek texts. For instance, the KJV is based on what is called the Received Text, or the "majority text". It's called that because the majority of ancient greek manuscripts are all of the same nature as what you see translated into English in the KJV. Something like 2,000 manuscripts copies make up the received text.
The text that underlies modern versions (Good News, NIV, NASB, etc) is primarily made up of TWO main manuscripts. There are others (about 10), but 2 of them are leaned on heavily.
The origin of the Received Text, and the origin of these other 2 manuscripts are very different. I personally believe (after some study into this issue) that the manuscripts used to translate the modern versions are corrupt. They are very different from what was accepted as the preserved Word of God for 1800 years, the Received Text.
Many people claim they can read the modern versions and get the same doctrine from them. In most cases this is true, however the doctrine in many verses has been completely altered. Doctrines that have been weakened in the modern versions are: Salvation, Baptism, Jesus' Diety, the existance of Hell, Fasting, and many more. So why read a Bible that weakens godly doctrine?
I stop there because [b]philologos[/b] loves to point out where he thinks I am wrong on this issue... even tho we both have come to the exact same conclusion on this issue. (and he probably is more educated on this than I am)
So I'll let him step up to the plate in finish my thoughts.
Krispy |
| | 2005/2/8 10:59 | | IRONMAN
Member
Joined: 2004/6/15
Posts: 1924
IN HEAVENLY PLACES WITH JESUS
| | Re: | | Quote:
There is a big difference between the underlying greek texts. For instance, the KJV is based on what is called the Received Text, or the "majority text". It's called that because the majority of ancient greek manuscripts are all of the same nature as what you see translated into English in the KJV. Something like 2,000 manuscripts copies make up the received text.
so does this mean that the KJV is more accurate in its translation and therefore more authoritative?
Quote:
The origin of the Received Text, and the origin of these other 2 manuscripts are very different. I personally believe (after some study into this issue) that the manuscripts used to translate the modern versions are corrupt. They are very different from what was accepted as the preserved Word of God for 1800 years, the Received Text.
corrupt in what sense? do you mean the watering down of doctrine as you mentioned later on in your response? How different are the two texts from eachother?
Quote:
Many people claim they can read the modern versions and get the same doctrine from them. In most cases this is true, however the doctrine in many verses has been completely altered. Doctrines that have been weakened in the modern versions are: Salvation, Baptism, Jesus' Diety, the existance of Hell, Fasting, and many more. So why read a Bible that weakens godly doctrine?
Concerning doctrines in the word, in the 2 versions I have the doctrines are the same, worded differently. It is possible to say the same thing in a different way and not lose the meaning is it not? Many of those things you mentioned are not not preached about in church but if you read the bibles that are in that church I'm sure you will find them there.
Are these things that are written in the bible not spiritual in nature? Should we really be splitting hairs on what the person who wrote down these things (under direction of the Holy spirit) really meant? I'm sure if they could see us now they would they would be surprised at what we think they meant when they wrote these things down. with that being said and the authors that GOd commissioned to write the Word being instructed by the spirit should we not also seek that same spirit to minister to us concerning these spiritual things?
Quote:
I stop there because philologos loves to point out where he thinks I am wrong on this issue... even tho we both have come to the exact same conclusion on this issue. (and he probably is more educated on this than I am)
More educated in what sense? the ins and outs of the meanings of the texts, historical settings etc, the spiritual meaning or both?
I am curious because there is something God has revealed to me which He wants me to share at some point here.
_________________
Farai Bamu
|
| | 2005/2/8 11:36 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
so does this mean that the KJV is more accurate in its translation and therefore more authoritative?
Yes, because it is based on the preserved Word of God in Greek.
Quote:
corrupt in what sense? do you mean the watering down of doctrine as you mentioned later on in your response? How different are the two texts from eachother?
Thats a lengthy issue... perhaps someone can jump in and help me here cuz I dont have a lot of time today to completely address this.
Quote:
Concerning doctrines in the word, in the 2 versions I have the doctrines are the same, worded differently. It is possible to say the same thing in a different way and not lose the meaning is it not? Many of those things you mentioned are not not preached about in church but if you read the bibles that are in that church I'm sure you will find them there.
OK, go to Acts 8:37 in the NIV, or any other modern version, and explain to me what the eunich confessed to Phillip in order to be baptised. (hint... it's been omitted!) This is not "saying something in a different way" ... it's deleting important doctrine.
Quote:
Should we really be splitting hairs on what the person who wrote down these things (under direction of the Holy spirit) really meant?
The Bible, at least in my opinion, is pretty straight forward. Truth is simple. Yes, we should be splitting hairs on this. Absolutely.
Quote:
I'm sure if they could see us now they would they would be surprised at what we think they meant when they wrote these things down.
Actually... Paul even wrote against those who were abusing scripture, taking things out of context, and deleting. The writings of the early church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd century are filled with their concerns about those who were changing the writings of the apostles to fit their own gnostic views.
Quote:
More educated in what sense? the ins and outs of the meanings of the texts, historical settings etc, the spiritual meaning or both?
Yes... he seems to be. I think he has studied this for a long time. He's pretty sharp.
Quote:
I am curious because there is something God has revealed to me which He wants me to share at some point here.
Sooo... share it. There are a lot of Bereans here who will either confirm or deny for you if it truly is from God.
Your brother,
Krispy |
| | 2005/2/8 11:53 | |
| | Re: | | Quote:
so does this mean that the KJV is more accurate in its translation and therefore more authoritative?
Yes, because it is based on the preserved Word of God in Greek.
Quote:
corrupt in what sense? do you mean the watering down of doctrine as you mentioned later on in your response? How different are the two texts from eachother?
Thats a lengthy issue... perhaps someone can jump in and help me here cuz I dont have a lot of time today to completely address this.
Quote:
Concerning doctrines in the word, in the 2 versions I have the doctrines are the same, worded differently. It is possible to say the same thing in a different way and not lose the meaning is it not? Many of those things you mentioned are not not preached about in church but if you read the bibles that are in that church I'm sure you will find them there.
OK, go to Acts 8:37 in the NIV, or any other modern version, and explain to me what the eunich confessed to Phillip in order to be baptised. (hint... it's been omitted!) This is not "saying something in a different way" ... it's deleting important doctrine.
Quote:
Should we really be splitting hairs on what the person who wrote down these things (under direction of the Holy spirit) really meant?
The Bible, at least in my opinion, is pretty straight forward. Truth is simple. Yes, we should be splitting hairs on this. Absolutely.
Quote:
I'm sure if they could see us now they would they would be surprised at what we think they meant when they wrote these things down.
Actually... Paul even wrote against those who were abusing scripture, taking things out of context, and deleting. The writings of the early church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd century are filled with their concerns about those who were changing the writings of the apostles to fit their own gnostic views.
Quote:
More educated in what sense? the ins and outs of the meanings of the texts, historical settings etc, the spiritual meaning or both?
Yes... he seems to be. I think he has studied this for a long time. He's pretty sharp.
Quote:
I am curious because there is something God has revealed to me which He wants me to share at some point here.
Sooo... share it. There are a lot of Bereans here who will either confirm or deny for you if it truly is from God.
Your brother,
Krispy |
| | 2005/2/8 11:54 | | IRONMAN
Member
Joined: 2004/6/15
Posts: 1924
IN HEAVENLY PLACES WITH JESUS
| | Re: | | Quote:
OK, go to Acts 8:37 in the NIV, or any other modern version, and explain to me what the eunich confessed to Phillip in order to be baptised. (hint... it's been omitted!) This is not "saying something in a different way" ... it's deleting important doctrine.
the good news bible reads as follows:
there is no verse 37 but it says in the commentary that some versions have verse 37 which reads "Phillip said to him, "you may be baptised if you belive with all your heart." "I do." He answered; "I belive that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
What is the significance of that? I mean in this version that verse is omitted for whatever reason and yet it is mentioned that it is available in other texts, is that bad? or more importantly is that the whole text or is there more missing?
As for the eunuch who was reading from Isiah, he confessed that he believed that Christ was God's son and if we look at Peter's experience when Christ asked him who he thought Christ was and Peter Replied that he thought He was God's Son. Jesus went on to say that the only way Peter could have know that and confessed it was if the Father had revealed it to him. So this eunuch had the same revelation which came from God and was spirit. Should we not be that much more in pursuit of this spirit from God that reveals these things to us?
Quote:
Actually... Paul even wrote against those who were abusing scripture, taking things out of context, and deleting. The writings of the early church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd century are filled with their concerns about those who were changing the writings of the apostles to fit their own gnostic views.
People have always done this which is wrong but should that not cause us to seek the spirit of God even more fervently for revelation of the scriptures?
Quote:
Sooo... share it. There are a lot of Bereans here who will either confirm or deny for you if it truly is from God.
I will do so when I am instructed to, as for comfirmation of that being right or wrong, well that is a different matter altogether. It may go against the beliefs of some and ruffle feathers but I guess that is a mark of certain revelations from God, that not everyone will be ok with them.
KrispyKrittr wrote:
Quote:
so does this mean that the KJV is more accurate in its translation and therefore more authoritative?
Yes, because it is based on the preserved Word of God in Greek.
Quote:
corrupt in what sense? do you mean the watering down of doctrine as you mentioned later on in your response? How different are the two texts from eachother?
Thats a lengthy issue... perhaps someone can jump in and help me here cuz I dont have a lot of time today to completely address this.
Quote:
Concerning doctrines in the word, in the 2 versions I have the doctrines are the same, worded differently. It is possible to say the same thing in a different way and not lose the meaning is it not? Many of those things you mentioned are not not preached about in church but if you read the bibles that are in that church I'm sure you will find them there.
OK, go to Acts 8:37 in the NIV, or any other modern version, and explain to me what the eunich confessed to Phillip in order to be baptised. (hint... it's been omitted!) This is not "saying something in a different way" ... it's deleting important doctrine.
Quote:
Should we really be splitting hairs on what the person who wrote down these things (under direction of the Holy spirit) really meant?
The Bible, at least in my opinion, is pretty straight forward. Truth is simple. Yes, we should be splitting hairs on this. Absolutely.
Quote:
I'm sure if they could see us now they would they would be surprised at what we think they meant when they wrote these things down.
Actually... Paul even wrote against those who were abusing scripture, taking things out of context, and deleting. The writings of the early church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd century are filled with their concerns about those who were changing the writings of the apostles to fit their own gnostic views.
Quote:
More educated in what sense? the ins and outs of the meanings of the texts, historical settings etc, the spiritual meaning or both?
Yes... he seems to be. I think he has studied this for a long time. He's pretty sharp.
Quote:
I am curious because there is something God has revealed to me which He wants me to share at some point here.
Sooo... share it. There are a lot of Bereans here who will either confirm or deny for you if it truly is from God.
Your brother,
Krispy
_________________
Farai Bamu
|
| | 2005/2/8 12:30 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
What is the significance of that? I mean in this version that verse is omitted for whatever reason and yet it is mentioned that it is available in other texts, is that bad? or more importantly is that the whole text or is there more missing?
You dont have a problem with scripture being omitted? Yes, your footnotes mention it, but what that does is casts doubt on God's Word. Even you yourself are admitting that you have doubts to the authenticity of what your reading.
Quote:
will do so when I am instructed to, as for comfirmation of that being right or wrong, well that is a different matter altogether. It may go against the beliefs of some and ruffle feathers but I guess that is a mark of certain revelations from God, that not everyone will be ok with them.
Well, it's not whether it ruffles someones feathers or goes against someones belief... it's whether or not this revelation goes against scripture. God will reveal things to us thru scripture, but He is not giving new revelation outside of scripture. Therefore, anything that God has told you will be found in scripture and line up with scripture and agree 100% with scripture. Otherwise, it's not a revelation from God.
But since I have no idea what it is yet, I certainly cant judge it.
Just curious here... exactly how do you know when God instructs you speak? Do you base that on a feeling, or does He audibly speak to you? I'm not trying to discourage you... I'm honeslty interested in knowing how you would know.
Krispy |
| | 2005/2/8 13:07 | |
|
