Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

rossh

Well-known member
Of course there is. Far too many Christians seem afraid of an educated understanding of the Bible. Just as long as your rely on what you say "God is telling you" you are at the mercy of your feelings.
? Listen,, I am the one here preaching Healing and preaching that we must listen to the Word of God - as in His Word - Scriptures only... is there a problem with this or should I listen to someone else ?
Hebrews 4:12 See, the Word of God is alive! It is at work and is sharper than any double-edged sword — it cuts right through to where soul meets spirit and joints meet marrow, and it is quick to judge the inner reflections and attitudes of the heart.
See the above, this is all that I am saying and it is only ever what I have been saying.. what is the problem ? The Word of God alone!
 

rossh

Well-known member
Of course there is. Far too many Christians seem afraid of an educated understanding of the Bible. Just as long as your rely on what you say "God is telling you" you are at the mercy of your feelings.
I have never relied on what I say, but rather it is the Word of God Himself that only ever trust....
 

rossh

Well-known member
You are avoiding my question.

Let me ask it in a different way. If someone told you that God told them that one piece of scripture told them one thing. And you believe that God told you the same scripture ment something different. What would you say or do?
Hey, it is not a one way street here, you say I avoid your question, so do you mine.. God explains His Word to me in His Word, the Bible... Do you not believe that God can do this ? well do you or not ?
 

rossh

Well-known member
Of course there is. Far too many Christians seem afraid of an educated understanding of the Bible. Just as long as your rely on what you say "God is telling you" you are at the mercy of your feelings.
and I bet, it is not very specific either is it ? Let me make this back and forth debate end.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was unformed and void, darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. So there was evening, and there was morning, one day.
There above, no guessing no doubting no debating,,, If anyone doubts the passage above then it is on them, not me.
No, you seem to think that we have be educated in God in order to simply understand exactly what Gods Word is saying.. I believe that God can and will explain to us what He is saying to us if only we ask..
 

kiwimac

Member
and I bet, it is not very specific either is it ? Let me make this back and forth debate end.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was unformed and void, darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. So there was evening, and there was morning, one day.
There above, no guessing no doubting no debating,,, If anyone doubts the passage above then it is on them, not me.
No, you seem to think that we have be educated in God in order to simply understand exactly what Gods Word is saying.. I believe that God can and will explain to us what He is saying to us if only we ask..
Aha...yeah...right!
 

organgrinder

Well-known member
Which has absolutely nothing to do with modern translations.
Well it is a translation of the Bible (OT in particular) KJVO folk don't accept. KJVO folk don't accept anything but the KJV. The LXX was a "modern translation" of the OT during the time of Jesus and Paul. They both quoted from it.
 

organgrinder

Well-known member
I believe attacking the KJV to promote modern translations is a red herring. Like I said I started this thread if you don’t like it move along or answer the question. Where is there scriptural support for modern translations ?
You do realize the KJV was a modern translation when it was made in 1611 and that other English translations existed before the KJV. And don't forget about the Latin Vulgate which was used since the 500s (late 4th century). Also the absolute best reference crib for the Vulgate in college in Latin class was the KJV. What does that tell you?
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
You do realize the KJV was a modern translation when it was made in 1611 and that other English translations existed before the KJV. And don't forget about the Latin Vulgate which was used since the 500s (late 4th century). Also the absolute best reference crib for the Vulgate in college in Latin class was the KJV. What does that tell you?
Not completely true the KJV was translated from the majority texts not the minority texts. Considering the manu scripts the KJV was not exactly the new kid on the block.
 

organgrinder

Well-known member
Not completely true the KJV was translated from the majority texts not the minority texts. Considering the manu scripts the KJV was not exactly the new kid on the block.
You missed the entire point of the post. Go back and read it again. Slowly this time. See if you can pick out the points and statements. Dispute them if you can. Hint: it wasn't about majority and minority texts.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
You missed the entire point of the post. Go back and read it again. Slowly this time. See if you can pick out the points and statements. Dispute them if you can. Hint: it wasn't about majority and minority texts.
I got the point you said the KJV at one point was a modern translation and in one sense that is true , but in reality since it was translated from the existing majority texts it wasn’t exactly new.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
I got the point you said the KJV at one point was a modern translation and in one sense that is true , but in reality since it was translated from the existing majority texts it wasn’t exactly new.
This works both ways, of course. Since the so-called modern versions are translated from a critical text that factors in readings from a number of ancient manuscripts and papyri fragments, then they're not exactly new either, are they?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

organgrinder

Well-known member
Here is what I wrote, Leatherneck:
You do realize the KJV was a modern translation when it was made in 1611 and that other English translations existed before the KJV. And don't forget about the Latin Vulgate which was used since the 500s (late 4th century). Also the absolute best reference crib for the Vulgate in college in Latin class was the KJV. What does that tell you?

Your issue is that the KJV is the only English translation we should use. That is what KJVOs tell us. New translations are perversions-- even the NKJV which is translated from the TR. Now how many English Bibles were there before the KJV? What texts were used by the translators? Was the Roman Catholic Vulgate used at all ( a version which had been around 1,000 years before the KJV)? I might add that Jesus and Paul both quoted from the Septuagint. KJVO folk don't hold that rendering in high esteem either.

The point is, older manuscripts and partials/fragments have been found. There have been plenty. What Erasmus-- a Catholic monk/priest-- used was about 6 manuscripts as I recall. Others can correct me if I am wrong. Had the older manuscripts been available, they would have been utilized just as the Vulgate was also utilized. I have found the KJV to be the best crib source for the Vulgate. Some difficult passages in the Latin were made clearer and the grammar understood by referring to the KJV when translating the Vulgate.

I was in a Bible study 45 years ago and happened to have both my KJV and Latin New Testament with me. One person in the study didn't have a Bible. I lended mine for the study and used the Latin New Testament. when called upon to read a section of scripture, I translated the Latin word-for-word as it was in the KJV. The Vulgate was used as a translation aid as were the earlier English Bible renderings.

You and the KJVO crowd demonize the new translations because they are not the KJV. They are translations based on the available manuscripts. The newer translations-- the NWT being the exception-- will all have the Gospel of faith alone, grace alone, the divinity of Jesus, blood atonement, etc. in them. There are no specific Catholic doctrines pushed. And yes, there will be some translation errors, just as there are in the KJV.

The KJV is fine for what it is and was. It is not the end all. God's word to man is revealed in all the translations, and the best translation is the one you read, study and understand everyday. Nobody here is demonizing the KJV. We just don't put it on a pedestal bordering on idol worship as the KJVO crowd appears to do.

God has preserved His word. You find that in all translations. If you understand what a translation is and what it isn't, you will understand that.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
This works both ways, of course. Since the so-called modern versions are translated from a critical text that factors in readings from a number of ancient manuscripts and papyri fragments, then they're not exactly new either, are they?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
The point is the minority texts were rejected by the early church and reformers because of their disagreement, deletions, additions, changes by many scribes over many years, and of course the 2 main manu scripts of the minority texts being in Roman Catholic possession was another red flag.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
The point is the minority texts were rejected by the early church and reformers because of their disagreement, deletions, additions, changes by many scribes over many years, and of course the 2 main manu scripts of the minority texts being in Roman Catholic possession was another red flag.
And I have numerous times challenged your anachronistic use of "minority texts" in connection with, for example, the early church period and at least once exposed your error on the whereabouts of a key manuscript, which is housed right alongside a key Byzantine text-type manuscript for the gospels. Per usual, you offer nothing new or substantive in the face of critique...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Shoonra

Active member
What Leatherneck disparages as "Minority texts" are actually the majority of texts and versions dating back to no later than the 5th and early 6th century.
The so-called Majority Text is based heavily on later resources, some dating after the Crusades, showing errors and questionable readings copied and recopied.
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
What Leatherneck disparages as "Minority texts" are actually the majority of texts and versions dating back to no later than the 5th and early 6th century.
The so-called Majority Text is based heavily on later resources, some dating after the Crusades, showing errors and questionable readings copied and recopied.
Nope, you got that backwards ! The minority texts are less than 5% of known texts with, deletions, additions, dropped verses, and fooled with by many scribes over many years not to mention the many disagreements between the minority texts. The minority texts are a product of Gnostics who never believed what they were translating.
 
Top