quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead
So do other translations. One thing the KJV translators did that they don't let the readers know about is editorialize some of the text. For instance in Daniel 3:25 the KJV says:

quote:

He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

In this passage the original actually says, "...is like a son of the gods." Old King Neb was a pantheist who believed in many gods, this statement is in keeping with his understanding of what or who the other person in the furnice was. The KJV translators knew that it was Jesus in the furnice, so they editorialized the verse.

This is not the only place they did this, and I don't think it is a problem, but the KJVO crowd use these passages to prove that modern translations don't respect the Diety of Jesus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodME_II
- The KJV originally contained a (the) 73 Book Canon, not the current 66 Book Canon. The KJV was standardized to 66 Books about the time of the Catholic Emanicipation Act in Great Britain in 1829 (the Catholic Emanicpation Act decreed that only Anglicans may hold public office in Great Britain).

quote:


- The original KJV was compiled by Erasmus, a life-long Roman Catholic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevin1a

I personaly find that I study the Bible best when I study more than one version. I have at least nine versions on my PDA and it has the capability to display them in side by side windows. I tend to favor the KJV over the NIV because I enjoy the way it sounds. I also use two German versions because I feel like one day the Lord may send me there because I have many ties to the country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mushhead

quote:

"GOD was manifest in the flesh" is a world of difference from "HE appeared in a body"

quote:


Those definitions all mean the same thing, so I don't see how they make a world of difference. Now if you are referring to the use of "He" instead of "God", well they mean the same thing as well. Especially when the opening line of verse sixteen identifies God as the subject.

quote:

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared... 1Timothy 1:16a

Saying there is a world of difference that butchers the divinity of Christ is nitpicking, IMO.

quote:



"To alter the Authorized Version would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the word of God.There would be two Bibles spread throughout the land and what CONFUSION this would create in almost every place. If the new translation were once to begin,where would it end?The Socinians would strike 'God' out of 1 Timothy 3:16 and strike out 1 John 5:7-8 as an interpolation.

"The AV,we believe,is the grand bulwark of Protestantism,the safeguard of the gospel,and the treasure of the church,and we should be TRAITORS in every sense of the word if we consented for it to be rifled by the sacrilegious hands of...co-ENEMIES of God and GODLINESS."

[Philpot,1857,The Gospel Standard

quote:

Even Virginai admits that her efforts were right to the end of the work.
She writes;
Dear Michael Penfold;

quote:

Male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
1 Cor.6:9
KJB has effeminite

quote:

Erasmus was only a catholic in name but never in spirit.Have you ever read ANY of his materials?Any?

quote:

Ya right,let's all worship He who.
The fact remains,that the word THEOS is there in 298 Greek Manuscripts;and there are only 2 that have Os.

quote:

ORIGINAL: phyl2

quote:

Male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
1 Cor.6:9
KJB has effeminite

The claim here is that the KJV is clearer, but is it? KJVOs claim that "homosexual offenders" means people who offend homosexuals. This is absolute rubbish. ...

Is "effeminite" more clear? I don't think so. I have known a number of men who were effeminite, but were not in any way homosexual or even bi-sexual. They were just somewhat "prissy".

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwe

Well, one issue for me is that the KJV relied on the textus receptus (a term created as a marketing ploy) that was translated from latin and relied on the Byzantine manuscripts, which have very little and unreliable support.

In contrast, there is substantial support for the Alexandrian text, which also relies in older manuscripts (Read: closer to the originals) than the exaulted byzantine text.

More and more I am liking the ESV Bible (though I don't necessarily support the main motivations for it's production - which was (I think) to counteract the TNIV).

quote:

The ESV New Testament is based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text which differs from the Traditional Greek text that underlies the King James Bible; it omits some 5000 words, including 18 entire verses in the New Testament alone. The Old Testament is a random mixture of texts from the Hebrew Masoretic tradition, readings from the alleged pre-Christian Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac, and Vulgate. It is the old RSV in a new garb.

quote:

ORIGINAL: figmentPez

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saved34

But I believe the NIV fails to deliver doctrinaly. In some instances like 1Timothy 3:16, which in the NIV loses it's entire meaning. If you've never read that same verse in the King James, you would have no idea that the NIV basically BUTCHERS the deity of Christ in this verse.

If what you say is true, that because of 1Tim 3:16, the NIV denies the deity of Christ. Does that mean that the KJV denies the person of the Spirit?

(NIV)
Romans 8:16
16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

Romans 8:26
26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.

(KJV)
Romans 8:16
16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Romans 8:26
26Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

I think that you'll agree it's absurd to assert that the KJV denies the person of the Spirit simply because it uses a different pronoun. I think it's equally absurd to say that the NIV is in any way denigrating the deity of Christ by using a pronoun instead of God.

quote:

ORIGINAL: harmonmsp

quote:

ORIGINAL: figmentPez
I think that you'll agree it's absurd to assert that the KJV denies the person of the Spirit simply because it uses a different pronoun. I think it's equally absurd to say that the NIV is in any way denigrating the deity of Christ by using a pronoun instead of God.

Excellent point; that's what I get for not reading my KJV except when I was a ten-year-old!

quote:

ORIGINAL: laura...

NIV -- Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

KJV -- Romans 9:5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

NIV -- John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

KJV --John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

So, which version "BUTCHERS the deity of Christ" in these two passages? Guess what? It's not the NIV.

quote:

JOHN 1:18

"No man hath seen God at any time; THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

John 1:18 presents us with a classical case of confusion caused by the modern Bible correctors. The phrase in question is "the only begotten Son." There are two variants here: one with the Greek text and the other with the translation.

The Greek of the Traditional Text reads, "o monogenes huios" (the only begotten Son). The Greek of the Alexandrian Text reads, "o monogenes theos" (the only begotten God). Additionally, the Greek word "monogenes" is no longer looked upon by some as meaning "only begotten" but is now considered better translated as "unique" or "one and only." However there is much disagreement among today's "scholars" as to which text to adopt and how to translate it.

Notice the total confusion that exists in the multitude of modern bible versions today.

1. "The only begotten Son"- King James Bible, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Daniel Mace New Testament 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster's 1833 translation, Darby 1890, Young's, Douay 1950, Spanish Reina Valera 1960, Italian Diodati 1602, Luther's German Bible 1545, the NKJV 1982, Third Millenium Bible, and KJV 21.

Even the RV and ASV, which introduced thousands of radical changes in the New Testament based on the Alexandrian texts, did not follow Sinaiticus/Vaticanus here but stuck with the Traditional Text. It wasn't till the NASB appeared on the scene that the false reading of "the only begotten God" was introduced.

2. "The only begotten God" NASB

3. "God the only Son" NIV 1973

4. "God the One and Only" NIV 1984 with a footnote "or only begotten"

5. "but the one and only Son, who is himself God" TNIV 2001 with footnote "some manuscripts - but the only Son".

The 1973 and 1977 NIV's read, "No MAN has ever seen God, but God the only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known". The 1978 and 1984 NIV editions now read, "No ONE has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." Thus, the NIV has been revised and changed " no man" to "no one", altered "only" to "One and Only" and omitted [Son]. Then the TNIV further changes "One and Only" to "one and only" and again adds "Son".

These next three are all related to one another as each is a revision of the last one in line, yet they all three differ from each other. See how consistent modern scholars are.

6. "the only Son" RSV 1952. The liberal RSV was the first major English version to translate monogenes as "only" rather than the traditional and more accurate "only begotten", but yet it retained the word Son rather than God.

7. "God the only Son" NRSV 1989

8. "the only God" English Standard Version 2001

9. "the one and only Son" Hebrew Names Version,

10. "God's only Son" New English Bible

11. "the only conceived Son" World English Bible

Several of these modern version don't follow any Greek text at all but combine divergent readings from different texts, such as the NIV 1973, TNIV, the NRSV, and the New English Bible.

The King James Bible is the correct reading both as to text and meaning. The Alexandrian texts which read "the only begotten GOD, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" teach that there are two gods and one of them is inferior to the other. There is the God whom nobody has seen and then there is the only begotten God who has explained the unseen God. The only other version I know of that reads this way, besides the NASB, is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, which says: "the only begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him."

One of the newest in the long line of bible revisions, the English Standard Version, reads: "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." This is totally absurd. It teaches not only that there are two Gods, the one nobody has ever seen, and the one who has made the unseen God known; but one of them is God and the other is the only God.

quote:

ORIGINAL: harmonmsp

quote:

ORIGINAL: c5a
But I use it because I think it best represents the true original manuscripts. The reason is the Greek texts used. All of the newer versions use primarily the same ones, which are highly suspect.

quote:


This would unfortunately be an assumption on your part. All of the newer versions use the same two compiled apparati for all of the older texts. The older manuscripts do not consist of a consensus on all verses, that Nestle-Aland or United Bible Societies then communicates. If you look at the Nestle-Aland text, you'll see a WIDE variety of possibilities, complete with which papyrus each variant comes from. If you're really interested in seeing why the N-A text chose to put which words in first, then read Bruce Metzger's 'Analytical Commentary on the New Testament'. In other words, the newer translations use all of the existing manuscripts, and usually go with what the N-A or UBS texts think is the primary reading, but no one has to do that. In any case, your reasoning is a little biased from the get-go. Perhaps I should pose the question: why do you say they are 'suspect'?

The Nestles Alland Texts and the UBS do NOT cover all manuscript evidence.Nestles even admits as much if you read them.They are primarily interested in favouring the Alexandrian readings somehow.
They only use some 600 manuscripts out of the 5,200 out there,plus the even higher number of latin.

Don't tell me you are sold on an unsaved man like Metzger.Hoo boy.

quote:

There may be some that are older, but that doesn't mean they are more accurate.

quote:


That's logically possible, but not a sound argument. What might you think, that the manuscripts that were composed in 150AD or earlier should not be preferred to the ones majorly compiled in 1300? After all, the main thing that the non-Majority text research is trying to do is, really, to get the best possible evidence for what the first churches were using.

*******
No they are not,they are trying to make money and stay in CONTROL.
So they dig for the tiny fragments of information made by heretics and use them as authortative as against the vast majority of relieable manuscripts that favour the reformation Bible.
Why even the Nestles has recently put the Gothic Bible to the back burner because it favoured the AV too greatly.
Actually his answer is right about the older not really being the best.
Even Paul warn of corrupters.

PeterAV
Thy word is very pure:

_____________________________

Holy Bible
Inspired,infallible,imutible.
Preserved,purified,perfect.
Now know as the AV 1611
Thy word is very pure,
therefore thy servant
loveth it.Psalm 119:140

quote:

ORIGINAL: john_mark

Acts 9:7 "And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice and seeing no man". KJV

Acts 22:9 " And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me." KJV

This is the account of Paul's conversion as told in the KJV. The KJV seems to contradict itself here. You could argue that the underlying Greek Text that the KJV is based on doesnt have this contradiction and you would be right. But KJV people often say that the KJV does away with the need for the underlying Greek text because of the KJV's accuracy.


By the way the corrupt NASB translate Acts22:9 " And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me".

quote:

ORIGINAL: phyl2

quote:

Erasmus was only a catholic in name but never in spirit.Have you ever read ANY of his materials?Any?

Have YOU read any of his matierials? The true fact is that Erasmus WAS a Catholic, and in more than name only. It is true that he had a lot of disagreement with some Catholic teaching, and knew there was a lot of corruption within the church, but he never left, and he argued very vehemently against leaving the church.

quote:

Ya right,let's all worship He who.
The fact remains,that the word THEOS is there in 298 Greek Manuscripts;and there are only 2 that have Os.

I don't know about the accuracy of the claim for 298 Greek manuscripts with the "theos" reading, but, it is an absolute lie that only 2 have "os". There are a number of Greek manuscripts which have "os" plus there are several ancient translations which support this reading. Not only that, there are some lectionaries, and a number of quotes by the early Christian writers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjwpastor

My last post has still been left unanswered. Perhaps Ezra has bowed out of this thread?

Peter, the tone of your posts alone is enough evidence to dissuade anyone from accepting your party line (and that is all KJVO is, a party-line). Does the KJV say anything about speaking the truth in love? Being humble? Maybe I picked that up from my pagan NIV.

Anyways, good luck with your attempts to pummel people into the Kingdom.

Chad

quote:

ORIGINAL: manwe

To be sure: loyalty to the KJV does not a Christian make.

Your exposition on mongenes is classical textbook case of "rootword fallacy" Peter.

a compound noun does not always a word make.

The problem with monogenes is the there is absolutely no certainty whatsoever as to the root meaning of "genes" which could either be "gino" = to become or "genao" = to beget but agin there is no certainly whatsoever. None.

Also, root word fallacy is another term for being "derivation happy." Only in exceedingly rare cases do meaning of words find their basis in derivitives and mongenes is not one of them.

One determines meaning of word from context and range of usage throughout scripture.

In the story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice Isaac, the angel of the Lord stops him and observes that is willing to give up his "monogenes" uios. But wait, Abe had more than one child, obviously Isaac was not Abe's "mongenes." Instead Isaac was unique becasue he was the son of the promise. It is translated "only son" but could easily be "unique."

In the case of John 1:18 and John 3:16, translating "monogenes" follows the same rule - "one and only" Son, it could be "unique one of a kind"

Jesus Christ is the ONE AND ONLY Son of God!

quote:

ORIGINAL: harmonmsp

Saved,

Just to let you know, shouting unnecessarily (i.e., typing in all caps) not only proves that you're on the defensive, it doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.