King James Version Only...?

[RLT63]

Again, you obviously believe only what you believe and reject sound scholarship, That's an excellent example of a closed mind! And your opinion of what I believe is irrelevant.

Who you believe, not what. You are very well informed and knowledgeable, and I’m not close minded I look at all the evidence I just may come to a different conclusion than you,

 

[RLT63]

The NIV is an excellent translation. Period.

Yes it is with a few exceptions like Numbers 5:21 and John 5:4. //////. . ////////////////. Those who claim the passage depicts abortion insert concepts not even hinted at in the text. Part of this confusion stems from the 2011 edition of the NIV, which refers to miscarriage. Pregnancy is not part of the requirement for the ritual. Nor is pregnancy mentioned anywhere in the process. The effects include some type of swelling and/or shriveling. Yet the targeted body part is vague. In fact, it’s the same Hebrew term used to describe the spot where Jacob suffered his infamous injury (Genesis 32:25), as well as the place where Ehud hid his sword (Judges 3:16). At worst, the Numbers 5passage implies future infertility. The ritual was not a remedy for an unwanted pregnancy—it was a test for adultery. Traditional interpretations of the ritual even restricted it from being performed on pregnant women (Mishnah Sotah 4:3

 

[Davy]

Who you believe, not what. You are very well informed and knowledgeable

Yeah, it's quite obvious this guy here isn't interested in facts, but is only attempting to get others to steer around use of the Traditional Greek texts prior to Wescott and Hort's corrupt post-1880s Greek Critical text.

 

[Jim B]

It goes from “I know a man who was taken to the third Heaven “ to “I was taken to the third Heaven”, Paul was most likely talking about himself and didn’t want to boast but to make changes like this is to interpret the scripture and not just translate it

So you're condemning a translation by one phrase that you disagree with? If that is the only problem with NLT, then we are blessed with a truly excellent translation!

And what are your translation qualifications? What does the Greek actually say? Please answer both questions!

 

[Jim B]

Who you believe, not what. You are very well informed and knowledgeable, and I’m not close minded I look at all the evidence I just may come to a different conclusion than you,

Fine.

 

[RLT63]

Hmmm. I think your standard of reference is wrong. That is why you cannot understand the God of the Bible causing parents to lose their baby, etc. Because of your poorest of all possible translation choices, you never understood correctly what the word of God is.

A lot of parents lose their children to miscarriages, Is God punishing them?

 

[Jim B]

Livestock were possessions of the Egyptians. I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Wrangler, are you one of those people who say God is a baby killer because women and children died in the flood of Genesis?

God is God and not subject to human judgement. I will never, never judge God.

 

[RLT63]

So you're condemning a translation by one phrase that you disagree with? If that is the only problem with NLT, then we are blessed with a truly excellent translation!

And what are your translation qualifications? What does the Greek actually say? Please answer both questions!

I’m not condemning a translation I READ THE NLT, but it’s a paraphrase and in places it gives you the editor’s interpretation of the scriptures and not just a translation. Here is a proof text you can use.

1Co 7:36 - But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter , if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let [fn]her marry.

1Co 7:37 - But he who stands firm in his heart, [fn]being under no constraint, but has authority [fn]over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. NASB 95 //// This is about a father deciding if his daughter can be given in marriage. If your Bible changes this to be about a man deciding if he should marry then it probably makes changes in other places too

 

[Davy]

No, I am not "making a case in support of Westcott and Hort". What I am saying is that they were instrumental in the field of Bible translation. Their work is viciously opposed by the KJV people, who insist that progress in the art/science of translation stopped with the "satanic" Westcott and Hort. That is absurd.

They also claim that most modern translations are based on Westcott and Hort, which is nonsense. The art/science of Biblical translation is based on the best source materials and the best interpretation of those ancient documents.

Fanaticism about Westcott and Hort's work is stupid.

Not fanaticism, but fact. You ought to try reading what Hort said in some of his own letters about his hatred of the Textus Receptus. (I presented a link in one of my posts of the published letters written by both Wescott and Hort where they convict themselves.)

 

[Jim B]

I’m not condemning a translation I READ THE NLT, but it’s a paraphrase and in places it gives you the editor’s interpretation of the scriptures and not just a translation. Here is a proof text you can use.
Tools

1Co 7:36 - But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgindaughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let [fn]her marry.
Tools

1Co 7:37 - But he who stands firm in his heart, [fn]being under no constraint, but has authority [fn]over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. //// This is about a father deciding if his daughter can be given in marriage. If your Bible changes this to be about a man deciding if he should marry then it probably makes changes in other places too

Here is what the introduction to the NLT says (in part), "The goal of any Bible translation is to convey the meaning and content of the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts as accurately as possible to contemporary readers. The challenge for our translators was to create a text that would communicate as clearly and powerfully to today’s readers as the original texts did to readers and listeners in the ancient biblical world. The resulting translation is easy to read and understand, while also accurately communicating the meaning and content of the original biblical texts. The NLT is a general-purpose text especially good for study, devotional reading, and to be read aloud in public worship. We believe that the New Living Translation—which combines the latest biblical scholarship with a clear, dynamic writing style—will communicate God’s word powerfully to all who read it."

Notice that the word "paraphrase" is absent, so your claim that "it's a paraphrase" is clearly misleading. The verses that you cite are translated differently in different English translations. For example, the NRSVue translates 1 Corinthians 7:36-37 as " If anyone thinks that he is behaving indecently toward his fiancée, if his passions are strong and so it has to be, let him marry as he wishes; it is no sin. Let them marry. But if someone stands firm in his resolve, being under no necessity but having his own desire under control, and has determined in his own mind to keep her as his fiancée, he will do well."

The NET translates these verses as " If anyone thinks he is acting inappropriately toward his virgin, if she is past the bloom of youth and it seems necessary, he should do what he wishes; he does not sin. Let them marry. But the man who is firm in his commitment, and is under no necessity but has control over his will, and has decided in his own mind to keep his own virgin, does well."

The NASB: "But if anyone thinks that he is acting dishonorably toward his virgin, if she is past her youth and it ought to be so, let him do what he wishes, he is not sinning; let them marry. But the one who stands firm in his heart, if he is not under constraint, but has authority [d]over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin, he will do well."

The NLT: "But if a man thinks that he’s treating his fiancée improperly and will inevitably give in to his passion, let him marry her as he wishes. It is not a sin. But if he has decided firmly not to marry and there is no urgency and he can control his passion, he does well not to marry."

The KJV: "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well."

Which one, according to you is "right"? Which one is most easily understood? Which conveys the meaning most clearly? And why do you claim that you have provided "the proof text"? It's laughable! This is not about a father deciding if his daughter can be given in marriage. If your Bible changes this clear and obvious meaning then it undoubtedly "makes changes" in other places too.

Don't you see the absurdity of your claim? What gives you the delusion of having perfect understanding?

 

[Wrangler]

This post lets me know you have never read the NKJV, you are going by something you have read or been told

Wrong. I first got into reading the Bible when my wife gave me this hardcover Devotional Bible NKJV.

It broke up each day of the with the following 5 sections:

1. OT
2. Pslams
3. Proverbs
4. NT
5. Modern application of one of the verses from above.

The modern stories were great. After just a couple of weeks, I realized the NKJV is unreadable. I continued to use the book to guide by reading plan and read the modern application stories. However, as soon as my CEV and NLT translation's arrived, I started reading those immediately.

 

[Wrangler]

A lot of parents lose their children to miscarriages, Is God punishing them?

I don't know. Where they adulterers?

 

[RLT63]

Here is what the introduction to the NLT says (in part), "The goal of any Bible translation is to convey the meaning and content of the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts as accurately as possible to contemporary readers. The challenge for our translators was to create a text that would communicate as clearly and powerfully to today’s readers as the original texts did to readers and listeners in the ancient biblical world. The resulting translation is easy to read and understand, while also accurately communicating the meaning and content of the original biblical texts. The NLT is a general-purpose text especially good for study, devotional reading, and to be read aloud in public worship. We believe that the New Living Translation—which combines the latest biblical scholarship with a clear, dynamic writing style—will communicate God’s word powerfully to all who read it."

Notice that the word "paraphrase" is absent, so your claim that "it's a paraphrase" is clearly misleading.

What is the New Living Translation (NLT)? | GotQuestions.org. Please note what the link says about interpreting rather than translating. It still has praise for the NLT

 

[Wrangler]

It still has praise for the NLT

I should. The NLT is one of the best English translations out there.

I love how many verses have foot notes, telling you what is the Scriptural reference. For instance, Today you have become my son.

 

[RLT63]

Wrong. I first got into reading the Bible when my wife gave me this hardcover Devotional Bible NKJV.

It broke up each day of the with the following 5 sections:

1. OT
2. Pslams
3. Proverbs
4. NT
5. Modern application of one of the verses from above.

The modern stories were great. After just a couple of weeks, I realized the NKJV is unreadable. I continued to use the book to guide by reading plan and read the modern application stories. However, as soon as my CEV and NLT translation's arrived, I started reading those immediately.

Well that works for you. Do you reject that someone else might not have the same experience?

 

[Wrangler]

I reject the notion that God kills children for any reason

Right. Better to replace God's explicit word with your manmade doctrines.


Now go and attack Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”
1 Samuel 15:3 NRSV

 

[Wrangler]

Well that works for you. Do you reject that someone else might not have the same experience?

I'm not sure what your question is. However, you won't find threads like this with other translations, side-stepping my idolatry question of A or B with 'I'm not an NLT only guy."

 

[RLT63]

I should. The NLT is one of the best English translations out there.

I love how many verses have foot notes, telling you what is the Scriptural reference. For instance, Today you have become my son.

I prefer the NET and the NASB 95 though the NLT is great for casual reading

 

[amigo de christo]

Of course! They were "liars" -- not. "They lied and invented dung"? Can't you see the truth at all or are you so tragically blinded?

They false . wescott and hort were men of satan and did his bidding .

 

[RLT63]

Right. Better to replace God's explicit word with your manmade doctrines.


Now go and attack Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”
1 Samuel 15:3 NRSV

You do have a point and you are right about David and Bathsheba’s baby. Nathan told David the child would not live