Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Then why do the modern version crowd ask for biblical evidence for those who believe the KJV is the most accurate translation in English ? I agree but it seems when the MV crowd uses the scriptural argument there is usually only crickets.

Amen roby. The Only churches around my part of the woods are leaving or changing their tune. There will always be a few hold-outs, but it's going to become difficult for those who promote anything other than the saving grace of Jesus Christ. The Master has given us the command and it has nothing to do particular Bible translations.

Do you mean this one?

And he summoned the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his soul will lose it, but whoever loses his soul for my sake and the Gospel will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
Since this is my thread the better question is there ANY scriptural support for modern translations that are translated from known corrupted texts like the minority texts, and or Greek translation from the two heretics like Westcott and Hort ? After that please cite the book, chapter, and verse that refers only to modern translations. You will need to be absolutely certain and provide real, actual and solid substantiation that whatever book, chapter and verse you appeal to is meant exclusively, and I do mean exclusively for modern translations.
Modern translations NIV, NASB, ESV, ETC are supported by the Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece) this Greek Text was created by Adulterers Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, and Homosexual Union Supporter And Jesuit Roman Catholic Cardinal (Carlo Maria Martini)

Kurt Aland divorced his wife Ingeborg and ran off and married his college student Barbara Nee Ehlers, being 22 years her senior

Did God Use Adulterers And Homisexual Union Supporters To Preserve His Words In The Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece)?

Adulterers Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Carlo Maria Martini, Are Corrupt Trees, And The Novum Testamentum Graece Is Their Corrupt Fruit

Matthew 7:17-18KJV

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
Matthew 7:17-18KJV
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
You fail to demonstrate that Matthew 7:17-18 support your human KJV-only reasoning.
 

kiwimac

Member
Modern translations NIV, NASB, ESV, ETC are supported by the Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece) this Greek Text was created by Adulterers Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, and Homosexual Union Supporter And Jesuit Roman Catholic Cardinal (Carlo Maria Martini)

Kurt Aland divorced his wife Ingeborg and ran off and married his college student Barbara Nee Ehlers, being 22 years her senior

Did God Use Adulterers And Homisexual Union Supporters To Preserve His Words In The Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece)?

Adulterers Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Carlo Maria Martini, Are Corrupt Trees, And The Novum Testamentum Graece Is Their Corrupt Fruit

Matthew 7:17-18KJV

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
What a load of fetid dingoes kidneys.
 
There is the same scriptural support for the making of Bible translations in present-day English as there was for making of Bible translations in 1500's English and as there was and is for making of Bible translations in other languages.

The Great Commission is one scriptural teaching that requires Bible translation since in order for the Great Commission be carried out among people who speak languages other than the original languages of Scripture translation is needed.
For the 10,978,197,431st time ... it's not so much about the translation, as the text(s) from which the translation occurs.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
For the 10,978,197,431st time ... it's not so much about the translation, as the text(s) from which the translation occurs.

Your repeating an assertion does not make it true. Your assertion is not true of KJV-only reasoning. KJV-only advocates will condemn and attack English translations made from the same multiple original-language texts from which the KJV is made.

KJV-only advocates will be just as negative or even more negative and critical of the NKJV based on the same texts than as they are of translations based on the Critical Text.
 
Your repeating an assertion does not make it true. Your assertion is not true of KJV-only reasoning. KJV-only advocates will condemn and attack English translations made from the same multiple original-language texts from which the KJV is made.

KJV-only advocates will be just as negative or even more negative and critical of the NKJV based on the same texts than as they are of translations based on the Critical Text.
And the same goes for your critical text camp .... repeating assertations regarding the critical text while ignoring it's obvious deficiencies is rather hypocritical. The bottom line is that it's one or the other, it cannot be both.
 

logos1560

Well-known member
And the same goes for your critical text camp .... repeating assertations regarding the critical text while ignoring it's obvious deficiencies is rather hypocritical. The bottom line is that it's one or the other, it cannot be both.
I am not a member of any so-called "critical text camp." It is not my camp so your statement would bear false witness. I have not advocated nor recommended the Critical Text nor any English translations made from it. I do not make any assertions advocating the Critical text.

You can appeal to a fallacy of false dilemma or the either/or fallacy, but that does not indicate that your reasoning is sound.

The KJV was translated from multiple, textually-varying original-language texts, and in addition translations based on textually-different sources such as the Latin Vulgate of Jerome were consulted and influenced the making of the KJV. The printed Textus Receptus Greek NT editions had some readings added from an edition of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. The Hebrew-Latin and Greek-Latin lexicons used by the KJV translators had Latin definitions for original-language words of Scripture that often or even usually came from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome. The KJV translators also borrowed many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament translated from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome.

Does the KJV itself suggest that it can be "both--and" instead of "either--or" since the KJV has readings and renderings from both so-called streams of Bibles? How can you assert that it is a matter of text since the KJV has some readings and renderings from the claimed "corrupt" text?
 

logos1560

Well-known member
In the 2021 edition of his book The King James Only Debate that promotes KJV-onlyism, Michael Hollner claimed that it [the KJV-only movement] is growing, and it is spreading much more than you realize" (p. 415).
 

imJRR

Well-known member
In the 2021 edition of his book The King James Only Debate that promotes KJV-onlyism, Michael Hollner claimed that it [the KJV-only movement] is growing, and it is spreading much more than you realize" (p. 415).

I very much doubt Hollner's claim is true - I believe it is much more wishful thinking on his part.
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
Modern translations NIV, NASB, ESV, ETC are supported by the Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece) this Greek Text was created by Adulterers Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, and Homosexual Union Supporter And Jesuit Roman Catholic Cardinal (Carlo Maria Martini)

Kurt Aland divorced his wife Ingeborg and ran off and married his college student Barbara Nee Ehlers, being 22 years her senior

Did God Use Adulterers And Homisexual Union Supporters To Preserve His Words In The Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece)?

Adulterers Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Carlo Maria Martini, Are Corrupt Trees, And The Novum Testamentum Graece Is Their Corrupt Fruit

Matthew 7:17-18KJV

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Did God use a Monk , Eramus, enslaved to Rome heresies to give us the word of God?
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Did God use a Monk , Eramus, enslaved to Rome heresies to give us the word of God?
Yet YOU cannot find even one RCC tradition in the KJV. God used a donkey so if He used a monk it would NOT change the fact that the KJV was translated from the majority texts and the minority texts were rejected by the early church and reformers because the Minority text is corrupt.
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
Yet YOU cannot find even one RCC tradition in the KJV. God used a donkey so if He used a monk it would NOT change the fact that the KJV was translated from the majority texts and the minority texts were rejected by the early church and reformers because the Minority text is corrupt.
I cannot find RCC theology in Nas/esv/Nkjv either!
 

Truth7t7

Well-known member
Yet YOU cannot find even one RCC tradition in the KJV. God used a donkey so if He used a monk it would NOT change the fact that the KJV was translated from the majority texts and the minority texts were rejected by the early church and reformers because the Minority text is corrupt.
As if Tischendorff found a treasure in St. Katherine's Monastery in 1844, unused ready for the trash can in (Codex Sinaiticus)

You are correct, the Church never used or received the counterfeit corruptions of God's words from Egypt

Only to be revived by Westcott and Hort in 1881, Big Smiles!

And recreated by Adulterers and a Homosexual Union Supporter in the (Novum Testamentum Graece)

Big Smiles!

Wikipedia: Codex Sinaiticus​

Scribes and correctors​

Tischendorf believed that four separate scribes (whom he named A, B, C and D) copied the work and that five correctors (whom he designated a, b, c, d and e) amended portions. He posited that one of the correctors was contemporaneous with the original scribes, and that the others worked in the 6th and 7th centuries. It is now agreed, after Milne and Skeat's reinvestigation, that Tischendorf was wrong, in that scribe C never existed.[72] According to Tischendorf, scribe C wrote the poetic books of the Old Testament. These are written in a different format from the rest of the manuscript – they appear in two columns (the rest of books is in four columns), written stichometrically. Tischendorf probably interpreted the different formatting as indicating the existence of another scribe.[73] The three remaining scribes are still identified by the letters that Tischendorf gave them: A, B, and D.[73] Correctors were more, at least seven (a, b, c, ca, cb, cc, e).[6]

Modern analysis identifies at least three scribes:

  • Scribe A wrote most of the historical and poetical books of the Old Testament, almost the whole of the New Testament, and the Epistle of Barnabas
  • Scribe B was responsible for the Prophets and for the Shepherd of Hermas
  • Scribe D wrote the whole of Tobit and Judith, the first half of 4 Maccabees, the first two-thirds of the Psalms, and the first five verses of Revelation
Scribe B was a poor speller, and scribe A was not very much better; the best scribe was D.[74] Metzger states: "scribe A had made some unusually serious mistakes".[62] Scribes A and B more often used nomina sacra in contracted forms (ΠΝΕΥΜΑ contracted in all occurrences, ΚΥΡΙΟΣ contracted except in 2 occurrences), scribe D more often used forms uncontracted.[75] D distinguished between sacral and nonsacral using of ΚΥΡΙΟΣ.[76] His errors are the substitution of ΕΙ for Ι, and Ι for ΕΙ in medial positions, both equally common. Otherwise substitution of Ι for initial ΕΙ is unknown, and final ΕΙ is only replaced in word ΙΣΧΥΕΙ, confusing of Ε and ΑΙ is very rare.[74] In the Book of Psalms this scribe has 35 times ΔΑΥΕΙΔ instead of ΔΑΥΙΔ, while scribe A normally uses an abbreviated form ΔΑΔ.[77] Scribe A's was a "worse type of phonetic error". Confusion of Ε and ΑΙ occurs in all contexts.[74] Milne and Skeat characterised scribe B as "careless and illiterate".[78] The work of the original scribe is designated by the siglum א*.[6]
 
Last edited:

Truth7t7

Well-known member
Yes, but you are either saved or lost being saved is an RCC doctrine and it is not scriptural.
I Agree, hear the gospel, believe the gospel, sealed by the Holy Spirit, "Done Deal"!

Ephesians 1:13KJV
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
 

YeshuaFan

Well-known member
I Agree, hear the gospel, believe the gospel, sealed by the Holy Spirit, "Done Deal"!

Ephesians 1:13KJV
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
The Kjv called the Holy Spirit an it, do you?
 
Top