SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : what bibletranslation to get?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 Next Page )
PosterThread
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

Hi Compliments...

Quote:
The Textus Receptus or The Received Text is the only manuscript that is trustworthy.

This is NOT a fact. After much study in the matter, there are many of us that do NOT believe that the [i]Textus Receptus[/i] is the most trustworthy -- let alone the ONLY trustworthy manuscript.

I suggest that every individual study the matter on their own and do their best to avoid the enormous amounts of biased, secondhand sources in the matter of Bible translation.

That being said...

I own a KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, and NIV amongst several other that I hold onto for occassional reference. The two versions that I frequent the most are the KJV and the NIV. I believe that the KJV is a faithful translation from the [i]Textus Receptus[/i] and the NIV is a faithful translation from the other sources. I will not "spit" on a translation or version in which I currently feel is inadequate -- less I find that I am spitting upon true words of God.

:-)

*EDIT...
- You may want to read the prefaces of each translation that you are considering. They are quite telling.


_________________
Christopher

 2007/5/8 13:54Profile
Warrior4Jah
Member



Joined: 2005/7/5
Posts: 382
The Netherlands

 Re:

Quote:
[i]Hmmhmm wrote:[/i]
one thing i dont really get is....why do they consider thease other manuscripts "better" then the TR manuscripts?


Possibly because these other manuscripts are older.
Since the Textus Receptus is based on a set of newer manuscripts the TR is regarded outdated. (According to my teacher)

Now I know there is:

[i]Textus Receptus
Nestle-Aland
Wescott-Hort[/i]

Now I did notice the textual differences between a TR based Bible such as the KJV/SV (Dutch bible) and the NBG which is a Nestle-Aland based bible. These differences are so far I can tell words (and even a thing as a sentence) that are missing in certain verses.
A possible explanation might be that early scholars added these words to the original letters or gospel letters. A possible example is Matthew 5:44 where the NIV (don't know what the NIV is based on, I only know its not TR :D) only has:

[i]“But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”[/i]

While the KJV has this line:

[i]“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”[/i]

You can clearly see what is missing, now in this case scholars might have added this stuff to make it more clear.

But what is also possible is that the base text did contain all this stuff which is missing from Nestle-Aland and other manuscript sets. In that case the Word of God is degenerated and has been subtracted from.
Well this is what I know so far, please correct me if I made some (severe) errors.

[edit] I see that there are also some more replies now... still I'll post this message to be 'sharpened' by oher iron. :-)
Also added 'according to my teacher'.


_________________
Jonathan Veldhuis

 2007/5/8 14:18Profile









 Re:

Quote:
I suggest that every individual study the matter on their own and do their best to avoid the enormous amounts of biased, secondhand sources in the matter of Bible translation.



This much I do agree with.

Let me also say that the differences between the TR and the Alex are so vast that they both can not be trustworthy. Either one is, or neither are. If neither are, then God decided somewhere along the line to prevent us from having His true Word.

Personally, I dont think He did that. And I dont think He preserved His Word thru the wicked Catholic Church.

But I wont seperate from true believers who think differently from me. I love ccchhhrrriiisss, and others who disagree with me, and I'm proud to call them my brothers... even at the risk of being called a "compromiser". I've been called worse by scarier men... lol.

Krispy

 2007/5/8 14:22
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991
Sweden

 Re:

well I'm comparing the KJV alot to my Swedish version, that is from Alexandrian text, much is missing, someone said to me about 8 % is missing from TR, don't know if that is accurate but i have seen entire verses just gone.... or added if you look from the other side, but when looking at it as missing, its often very to me seemingly important parts that are missing.


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2007/5/8 14:28Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

Hi Krispy...

Quote:

KrispyKrittr wrote:

The only people I have ever met who speak english as a mother tongue, and claim not to be able to understand the KJV are people who dont read the Bible on a regular basis, and have never read it all the way thru.

I dont mean to be hard on folks, but thats been my experience.

I can understand if english is your second language... in which case I recommend both the KJV, and a translation in your language based on the Textus Receptus, and the same Hebrew. However, a century ago the Bible was [b]central[/b] in teaching people english... both english speaking children in schools, as well as immigrants. But now we say "oh, they'll never understand the KJV." Thats a lie. A lie perpetrated by publishing companies.

I really don't believe that it is a "lie." I know many highly educated believers who have a difficult time with the early 17th Century English of the King James Version. They are not making excuses for reading a different version. However, you are correct that they -- LIKE 95% OF ALL ENGLISH SPEAKERS -- are not fluent in the 17th Century grammar and usage of the KJV.

English is my wife's second language, yet she has a strong foundation in English (she has earned a Masters Degree). However, she finds the language of the KJV difficult to comprehend without a plethora of study aids -- which is completely against the desires of the translators (as is included in the original preface of the KJV). As familiar as I am with the KJV, I do not speak or "act out" such language in my everyday life. Consequentally, I sometimes must further reference a passage in a dictionary or lexicon in order to obtain an adequate explanation of the passage in question.

When I lead a person to the Lord, I often encourage them to read the NIV if they have difficulty with the KJV. I explain that there is a lot of debate about which version is best, but I tell them that it is important for them to be grounded in the Word. Over time, I explain, they will probably want to become familiar with the KJV. This isn't due to the unquestionable "superiority" of the version -- but because of the vast amounts of study aids available, as well as the idea of translative comparison.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2007/5/8 14:31Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Possibly because these other manuscripts are older.



This is absolutely not true. The only "proof" that this is true is because the Catholic Church says it's true. There is no real evidence to substantiate this claim.

If you want to believe the Catholic Church... go ahead.

Krispy

 2007/5/8 14:31
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991
Sweden

 Re:

so far im going with TR best availible translation is the KJV.

and from the other text it is the NIV or what say ye?

:-)


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2007/5/8 14:33Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

Hi hmmhmm...

Quote:

hmmhmm wrote:
so far im going with TR best availible translation is the KJV.

and from the other text it is the NIV or what say ye?

As far as English is concerned, I would say that this is at least a fair assessment.

I would encourage you to study this topic extensively. In my research, I actually went to the translators of the NIV with the rumors and slanderous statements that have been made. I also contacted several "experts" in the field of ancient translation in order to obtain their input. I presented them with questions and accusations from other works, and listened to their answers. I also researched the origins of the translations -- but not singularly from the obviously biased sources (on either side of the discussion).

Such research might take a little time, but it is well worth the effort (in my opinion). You might not come to the same conclusion as I did, but I imagine you will "see through" much of the "neo-ecclesiastic myths" about the translations.

Remember, both the [i]Textus Receptus[/i] and [i]Alexandrian Texts[/i] (amongst the others) were translated from pre-existing texts. The root question isn't about the English texts. The root, in my opinion, is about the sources. The sources are the reason for variations in the versions' text. Yet I have NEVER found a clear and concrete reason to believe that one source is altogether superior to the other.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2007/5/8 14:45Profile
Warrior4Jah
Member



Joined: 2005/7/5
Posts: 382
The Netherlands

 Re:

Quote:
[i]Krispy wrote:[/i]
This is absolutely not true. The only "proof" that this is true is because the Catholic Church says it's true. There is no real evidence to substantiate this claim.

If you want to believe the Catholic Church... go ahead.



I did not know the only 'proof' is by catholics claiming this is true.. and if you state it this way. No, I don't want to believe the Catholic Church, still this remark doesn't help me much. :-(
I'd still like to know why there are these differences between the TR and the other manuscripts.

[edit]Fixing up my english and adding quote


_________________
Jonathan Veldhuis

 2007/5/8 14:57Profile
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991
Sweden

 Re:

i will investigate this matter more closley.... Ive done this some in the Swedish translations, and I'm not satisfied with the translators explanations and their motivation for choosing to translate in a certain way, and "leave" out hard passages to translate? some one counted that the new "official" version differed at 4000!? places in the old testament alone. So in the Swedish I'm clinging to my "kjv" for now, if anyone has some recommendation on books of this translation issue id be happy and glad for recommendations to look into more deeply


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2007/5/8 15:13Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy