Poster | Thread | proudpapa Member
Joined: 2012/5/13 Posts: 2936
| Re:Heydave | | Hi Heydave
Heydave wrote /// We have hundreds of reliable manuscripts. Unfortunately for you and me God decided not to have them written in English!///
Which manuscripts are reliable?? If my memory serves me right their are more varients within the existing manuscripts than their are words in the new testament.
I believe that God has blessed the martyrdom of William Tyndale and opened the eyes of the King and has supernaturally inspired the exact words that He wanted for the English speaking people, so that even a plow boy like myself can have the Word of God.
2 tim 3:16 is not reffering to the originals, Paul wrote 2 timothy some 1500 years after the giving of the originals to Moses, The originals where well gone and passed away, the word scripture is never in reference to some long lost originals as Christodom would have us to believe today.
the issue is not one of translation prefrence it is an issue of inspiration, Oh that God would save the church from the carnal mind from its sight from its rational reasoning from its pagan rooted worship of Scholasticism. |
| 2013/2/6 9:09 | Profile | jimur Member
Joined: 2012/6/26 Posts: 88
| Re: | | I use and promote the use of the older edition KJV, so I'm a little biased to that translation. I don't consider myself a member of the KJV only group yet in essence I suppose I am. I do however own a half dozen or so modern translations and at times refer to them in difficult passages or simple comparisons. Still, I accept the KJV as final authority among translations. In all my study I refer to the original languages as best as my ability allows. I place more emphasis on word meaning at the time of the writing than on today's meaning and utilize older dictionaries and traditional word meanings. I prefer the 1769 KJV edition over others more readily available. Though the KJV has undergone very few actual revisions, editors have continually changed words for the sake of ease of reading, page format, today's more modern word usage and also apply electronic (digital) spell editing. As someone stated the NKJV is not a revision, but a new translation. Those who use today's KJV should be very much alert to such changes.
Bearmaster stated "many do not read their bible today". I agree with that statement and think one reason for this is brought about because of the various translations used from the pulpit. It's difficult to follow along with the preacher quoting or reading from the NIV when one has a different translation in his hand so in turn many even leave their bible at home and rely entirely upon what the preacher says, whom now has become their bible. The same holds true in many Sunday school and bible study classes. There are those who use a different translation with every other sermon or message, dependant upon which more easily reinforces his sermon. IMHO all this brings confusion into the church and we all know what the bible says about confusion. Thus Satan uses these translations as a tool to discourage both believer and would be believer. How often have we heard, "Which bible should I use, there are so many which one is the correct one", or some similar statement.
Another brother mentioned in this thread, the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts. The far greater majority of professing Christians have little or no awareness of the two and even fewer have any understanding of the history, background, and difference between them. The publishing houses capitalize on this with catch phrases such as "translated from older writings" or "new information", which is very misleading in that the fact is the majority text contains many partial manuscripts and documents which are much older than these "Dead Sea Scrolls" which are actually the oldest MOST COMPLETE COPIES" we have, not categorically the oldest. The history and origin of the minority and majority texts become extremely pertinent as well. We should all learn more of the theology of such men as Origen, Westcott, and Hort, before so readily adopting their teachings and these minority texts. At times we all seem lead of a different "Holy Spirit".
Praise God the jux of the matter is He came, He died according to scripture, He resurrected, ascended in to Heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the Father making intercession for ALL those who call upon His name.
|
| 2013/2/6 9:00 | Profile | sonofthunder Member
Joined: 2005/3/31 Posts: 419 Son Of Thunder i come from a land down under, due south at the bottom of your work globes
| Re: | | But keep the argument going:
After all thats what bible translation does
Hots up debate.
Dont let me interefere. ( God forbid) _________________ Bro Stephen
|
| 2013/2/6 7:56 | Profile | sonofthunder Member
Joined: 2005/3/31 Posts: 419 Son Of Thunder i come from a land down under, due south at the bottom of your work globes
| Re: | | Oh. Does anyting stir the pot more than bible translation?
A problem the 1st century church didnt have to deal with (not like us)
Well us 21st (centurions) anyhow:
I dont race out to test/ try/ purchase some New hot off the press bible.
The king james version is anti quainted and non contemporary (now)
So does that mean the Niv and nkjv will be ...if the Lord tarries another 20 years?
What is the answer???
We keep bible hopping ( like a lot of church goers)** smile ** i suppose:
_________________ Bro Stephen
|
| 2013/2/6 7:51 | Profile | a-servant Member
Joined: 2008/5/3 Posts: 435
| Re: | | Hey HeyDave,
"Why should we choose one over the other when we have access to the original language text and in this instance both the NKJV and the KJV draw from excatly the same manuscripts?"
Ahhhh, that's what the publisher of the NKJV wanted to make us believe. And you answered my question based on the assumption of the correctness of that statement.
Let me quote you a source that also looked into this in detail:
"The NKJV repeats the lie that "There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals." In fact, there are two: the perverted Alexandrian line that was continued by the Roman Catholic religion and the preserved, apostolic, Antiochian line that progresses from the Christians at Antioch of Syria ( Acts 11:26 ) to our precious King James Bible."
"The New King James is NOT a King James Bible. It changed thousands of words, ruined valuable verses, and when not agreeing with the King James Bible, it has instead copied from the NIV, NASV or RSV"
So it looks to me like the mix & match of all available text streams based on their liking.
To my understanding after reading the context of 2 Cor 2:17 only the first makes sense here, since nobody would accuse Paul out of thin air in the middle of a sentence to sell the word for wordly profit.
"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ"
When you're aware to be in the sight of God in fullest sincerity, you're first of all concerned to be truthful according to the word received. Corruption of the message is impurity that has serious consequences in his position. "Peddling" isn't content related, it's a completely different topic and has nothing to do with the rest of the sentence. |
| 2013/2/6 7:16 | Profile | sonofthunder Member
Joined: 2005/3/31 Posts: 419 Son Of Thunder i come from a land down under, due south at the bottom of your work globes
| Re: | | Seems like there is always some "newer" more "readable" to this Generation Bible. Hmmm
Heres some more food for thought ...Jesus actually didnt want his words to be understood ( by all)
Lest they hear with ears - and there hearts should be converted.
Therefore do i speak to the multitude in parables.
More readable ( sorry but i now laugh at ) more readable translations
In ten years from now language will change yet again:
Back to the publishing for profit drawing board ... we need ...a more legible readable bible translation ( qoute unqoute )
That was supposedly the quest of Niv and new kjv ( more readable )
Only problem - is language keeps changing. ( Grrrr) _________________ Bro Stephen
|
| 2013/2/6 6:14 | Profile | Heydave Member
Joined: 2008/4/12 Posts: 1306 Hampshire, UK
| Re: | | Re: a-servant quote: "Both sounds generally true, but which Paul is the original, and what did God inspire and preserve here, at this position 2 Cor 2:17? "
Hi a-servant. Here is what I do when I see two different wordings of a passage of scripture. I go back to look at the original language and what the lexicons say is the definition of the words.
So using the KJV greek we find that the word 'corupt'(KJV) comes from the original greek 'kapēleuō'. This word means to be a huckster, to peddle; to corupt; to make money by selling. So to answer your question, both are technically correct, but I would say that the NKJV gives a better definition of the word.
If we choose the words of the KJV, just because it is the KJV then I think we are being disengenuous. Why should we choose one over the other when we have access to the original language text and in this instance both the NKJV and the KJV draw from excatly the same manuscripts?
By looking into this particular verse and seeing both ways that it is translated and then checking the meaning of the word, I got a blessing, thank you! I now see what it means in a deeper way. I draw something from both the NKJV and the KJV and it tells me that it is talking about those who corupt the word by making it a means of financial gain. Probably very relevant to the topic here!
In fact it would not make sense to infer that Paul is talking about changing the 'translation' of the written word of God, as part of it was still being written here. In fact in the context of the rest of this verse it is clear he is talking about the 'spoken' word of God. "...in sight of God speak we in Christ" he says, i.e preaching.
I'm just trying to be a good berean :). I think both the KJV and NKJV are good translations, but it's good to check out meanings if we are unsure. God gave us the intelligence and resources to do this. Did God preserve His word? Absolutely He did. We have hundreds of reliable manuscripts. Unfortunately for you and me God decided not to have them written in English! _________________ Dave
|
| 2013/2/6 5:05 | Profile | a-servant Member
Joined: 2008/5/3 Posts: 435
| Re: | | "....not trust the words of God with the multiplicity of translations."
So what ARE the words of God?
If the translations would all agree with each other it would be easy. But someone does not want it to be easy for us. He actually makes us want to doubt the inspiration and the preservation of God's words. So we can claim "this translation says it in that way...not God says so". There you go, not responsible to God, it's just a translators's opinion that made me do it.
King James Version 2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God"
New King James Version 2 Corinthians 2:17......"peddling the word of God" ( like the NIV, NASV and RSV )
Both sounds generally true, but which Paul is the original, and what did God inspire and preserve here, at this position 2 Cor 2:17? |
| 2013/2/6 0:12 | Profile | proudpapa Member
Joined: 2012/5/13 Posts: 2936
| Re: | | Quote:
One of the greatest deceptions of the enemy in the West is to make it so that believers do not trust the words of God with the multiplicity of translations. This is tragic..
I think When meditating on Bible translations, It is absoulte necessary to ask ourself where is the enemy in all of this? Has he just put distorting and destroying the Scriptures on the back burner?
The above quote is a reality, It is one of the fruits that has been created as the serpent of historical criticism has increasingly crept its way into the church.
The issue at hand is not so much one of prefrence of Bible translation as it is one of inspiration, Few people today believe that the scriptures we have are inspired.
Charles C. Ryrie wrote "For if even one part of our Bible is thought to be false, how can any of it be trusted to be true?
Is the Pericope De Adultera, John ch 7:53-8:11 a Counterfeit or Genuine??
|
| 2013/2/5 23:12 | Profile | twayneb Member
Joined: 2009/4/5 Posts: 2256 Joplin, Missouri
| Re: | | Whether the reason for the proliferation of translations is the copyright and the money that comes with it, or whether it is a true desire to see the word of God available to all people?...I am sure it is a mixed bag. I agree with earlier posts. The problem that I have in my own life is allowing the word of God to become revelation to me that changes the very fabric of who and what I am. As a teacher of the word, I often find myself struggling with this. The translation is not, in my opinion, the key. The key is getting into the word and allowing the word to transform my life. The Holy Spirit is the one who quickens the word to us. To borrow from Wigglesworth, I need to read my Bible in the Holy Ghost and allow Him to reveal it to me. _________________ Travis
|
| 2013/2/5 15:58 | Profile |
|