Oldest and Best, Really??

[RLT63]

So how would you reply to a video like this?

While Gene Kim could be a lot more loving in his approach (and I do not agree with his view of Soteriology), he does make some really good points that does not really fit with the Textual Critic viewpoint.

I do disagree also with Gene Kim’s view on all Modern bibles being of no use or benefit to the Christian life (Seeing he thinks corruptions means the whole of the translation is of no value or use). But he does make a good case for at least us having one Bible or one standard of God’s Word in this particular video.

Side Note:

To give further support of how we can use imperfect Modern Bibles:
Well, to give an analogy of how one can use an imperfect Bible, some foods can be eaten if you pick out the bad spoiled parts.
You just have to be really careful to not eat the spoiled parts, though. Even the the devil and unbelieving Jews were used as a part of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Which was the salvation of all of mankind). So I believe we can use Modern bibles unlike Dr. Gene Kim believes. I just don’t believe Modern bibles can be my final word of authority like the KJB, though (Because they change doctrines). But Modern bibles in my view are a necessity because there are many confusing archaic words in the KJB.

Speaking of corruption why does the KJV say Easter and not Passover?

 

[RLT63]

So how would you reply to a video like this?

While Gene Kim could be a lot more loving in his approach (and I do not agree with his view of Soteriology), he does make some really good points that does not really fit with the Textual Critic viewpoint.

I do disagree also with Gene Kim’s view on all Modern bibles being of no use or benefit to the Christian life (Seeing he thinks corruptions means the whole of the translation is of no value or use). But he does make a good case for at least us having one Bible or one standard of God’s Word in this particular video.

Side Note:

To give further support of how we can use imperfect Modern Bibles:
Well, to give an analogy of how one can use an imperfect Bible, some foods can be eaten if you pick out the bad spoiled parts.
You just have to be really careful to not eat the spoiled parts, though. Even the the devil and unbelieving Jews were used as a part of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Which was the salvation of all of mankind). So I believe we can use Modern bibles unlike Dr. Gene Kim believes. I just don’t believe Modern bibles can be my final word of authority like the KJB, though (Because they change doctrines). But Modern bibles in my view are a necessity because there are many confusing archaic words in the KJB.

Amazon.com

www.amazon.com

 

[Robert Gwin]

Hi Robert. Regardless God's name is not Jehovah. And Jehovah is not a good translation. There is no J sound in the ancient Hebrew.

Last time I checked Him, J is in English, and we are speaking in English here, not Hebrew. Every single Bible version that translates the Divine name without altering it renders it Jehovah sir, I realize I have very little knowledge compared to those scholars, heck I had to ask google how to spell that, but taking into account that the translators of the King James Version of the Bible tried unsuccessfully to remove His name from their version proves to me that God not only accepts that name in English, but even protected it. Were you aware that all English versions of the Bible has His name somewhere in it? I and others have tried to prove it is not in them, but no one to date has been able to produce one, do you know of one HIM?

 

[Davy]

Speaking of corruption why does the KJV say Easter and not Passover?

Because though the KJV is still the BEST English Bible translation to date, like all translations, it wasn't perfect either, and the original Letter To The Reader by the KJV translators that has been 'removed' in later editions, they explained this very type thing about their translation.

 

[RLT63]

Last time I checked Him, J is in English, and we are speaking in English here, not Hebrew. Every single Bible version that translates the Divine name without altering it renders it Jehovah sir, I realize I have very little knowledge compared to those scholars, heck I had to ask google how to spell that, but taking into account that the translators of the King James Version of the Bible tried unsuccessfully to remove His name from their version proves to me that God not only accepts that name in English, but even protected it. Were you aware that all English versions of the Bible has His name somewhere in it? I and others have tried to prove it is not in them, but no one to date has been able to produce one, do you know of one HIM?

It was the tradition of the Jews not to pronounce the name of God and the KJV was following that tradition. “Why Did the Jews Not Say God’s Name Aloud When He Never Said Not To?”

 

[RLT63]

Textual Criticism | All-Nations Bible Translation

allnationsbt.org

 

[HIM]

Last time I checked Him, J is in English, and we are speaking in English here, not Hebrew. Every single Bible version that translates the Divine name without altering it renders it Jehovah sir, I realize I have very little knowledge compared to those scholars, heck I had to ask google how to spell that, but taking into account that the translators of the King James Version of the Bible tried unsuccessfully to remove His name from their version proves to me that God not only accepts that name in English, but even protected it. Were you aware that all English versions of the Bible has His name somewhere in it? I and others have tried to prove it is not in them, but no one to date has been able to produce one, do you know of one HIM?

God gave What we perceive to be His name in Hebrew, pronouncing it in Hebrew not in a English translation.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

There is a difference between New Testament Bible translations today. Depending on which one you use, it comes from one of two different types of Greek text. And it DOES matter which one you rely upon for The New Testament.

Your statement confirms how SUCCESSFUL THE TWENTIETH CENTURY JESUIT CAMPAIGN, PLANNED SINCE VATICAN 2 AND BEFORE FOR DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, UNDER PRETENCE OF PROTESTANT LEADERSHIP WAS : WITH THEIR FRAUD!
I assure you, what they aimed at, was for Christendom to swallow their bait that <translations today>, come from one of two different types of Greek <text>, which is the last thing that could be helpful for their purpose BECAUSE THE THOUSANDS of smaller or larger newly discovered Greek MANUSCRIPT 'texts' that <today> are known, ONLY AND MOST DECISIVELY CONFIRM the trustworthiness of Erasmus' text which Tyndale translated and whose translation again the KJAV consists of virtually 100%.

 

[Davy]

Your statement confirms how SUCCESSFUL THE TWENTIETH CENTURY JESUIT CAMPAIGN, PLANNED SINCE VATICAN 2 AND BEFORE FOR DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE, UNDER PRETENCE OF PROTESTANT LEADERSHIP WAS : WITH THEIR FRAUD!
I assure you, what they aimed at, was for Christendom to swallow their bait that <translations today>, come from one of two different types of Greek <text>, which is the last thing that could be helpful for their purpose BECAUSE THE THOUSANDS of smaller or larger newly discovered Greek MANUSCRIPT 'texts' that <today> are known, ONLY AND MOST DECISIVELY CONFIRM the trustworthiness of Erasmus' text which Tyndale translated and whose translation again the KJAV consists of virtually 100%.

But just to let others know, the "Erasmus' text'" was actually from the Majority texts he used for his Greek translation, which the Majority Greek texts is the Traditional text linked back to the early Christians at Antioch.

I understand about the Jesuit aims against the Protestant Churches, but I don't see them as being the actual source of the deception. There is an Occult connection with Wescott and Hort's new Greek text offered in 1881.

 

[Davy]

God gave What we perceive to be His name in Hebrew, pronouncing it in Hebrew not in a English translation.

God's Name is actually in acrostics in the Hebrew of the Book of Esther.

 

[Wrangler]

God's name is not Jehovah.

What is God's name and what verse says it?

 

[ElieG12]

God's personal name appears more about 7000 times in the Scriptures: YHWH (JHVH, Jehovah).

Individuals who do not want to give that Name the importance it really has, substituted it by a title in God's own written word, confusing Bible readers about the identity of the "only true God" of whom Jesus speaks in John 17:3.

They could have left the four Hebrew letters transliterated and it would have been more honest, and so the readers would know that God has his own personal name that identifies Him and that He himself says so many times: THIS IS MY NAME, AND EVERYONE WILL KNOW IT.

It has been discovered a few years ago that the translators of the Greek LXX left the name of God in its original translation, rendering it with the four Hebrew letters that make it up. Why didn't most modern translators do the same, instead of substituting that important and sacred name for a title?

 

[Wrangler]

the "only true God" of whom Jesus speaks

And removing God’s personal name makes a mockery of when Jesus taught us to pray. Hallowed be thy name? What name is that?

 

[RLT63]

God's personal name appears more about 7000 times in the Scriptures: YHWH (JHVH, Jehovah).

Individuals who do not want to give that Name the importance it really has, substituted it by a title in God's own written word, confusing Bible readers about the identity of the "only true God" of whom Jesus speaks in John 17:3.

They could have left the four Hebrew letters transliterated and it would have been more honest, and so the readers would know that God has his own personal name that identifies Him and that He himself says so many times: THIS IS MY NAME, AND EVERYONE WILL KNOW IT.

It has been discovered a few years ago that the translators of the Greek LXX left the name of God in its original translation, rendering it with the four Hebrew letters that make it up. Why didn't most modern translators do the same, instead of substituting that important and sacred name for a title?

I don’t know. Why did they do this in your opinion? I have read that it was to follow the Jewish tradition of not speaking the name of God.

 

[ElieG12]

The things that human beings do can have many human reasons behind...

However, when the things they do are against God's purpose, as in this case to make His Name known worldwide (Psal. 83:18), it is because regardless of the "justifiable" human reason that exists behind, the invisible enemy of God who rules this world is clouding the view of those people.

 

[RLT63]

The things that human beings do can have many human reasons behind...

However, when the things they do are against God's purpose, as in this case to make His Name known worldwide (Psal. 83:18), it is because regardless of the "justifiable" human reason that exists behind, the invisible enemy of God who rules this world is clouding the view of those people.

Doesn’t that make it difficult to trust any translation of the Bible?

 

[Wrangler]

I don’t know. Why did they do this in your opinion? I have read that it was to follow the Jewish tradition of not speaking the name of God.

Why matters not to me. Give me the facts and I'll draw my own moral conclusions.

 

[ElieG12]

The Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures finished writing about 4 centuries before Jesus was born. A lot happened in Judaism from Malachi to the time of Christ. Even the Jews do not consider the writings that were produced in that 4 centuries time span to be "inspired", nor do they believe in additional inspired prophets during that period.

Malachi, the last book produced by an inspired prophet of God before the nation became fruitless in this regard, says:

Mal. 3:16 At that time those who fear Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion of him, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance was written before him for those fearing Jehovah and for those meditating on his name.
17“And they will be mine,” says Jehovah of armies, “in the day when I produce a special property. I will show them compassion, just as a man shows compassion to his son who serves him. 18 And you will again see the distinction between a righteous person and a wicked person, between one serving God and one not serving him.”

What is God's position regarding the use of his name in the last days?

 

[Jim B]

The entire Bible was authored by Jews (with one exception: Luke-Acts). All Jesus' disciples were Jews. The entire early church was comprised of Jews. In other words, the Bible is a Jewish "book" (really, a collection of separate writings) written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. The primary "Bible" of Jesus time was the Septuagint, the Old Testament translated into Greek.

What we have today is a plethora of English translations. They are based on many centuries of scholarly work -- textual criticism. (If you don't understand the term, look it up.) Some prefer the King James, which was created in the early 17th Century using the source materials available then as well as existing translations. It is just one of many English translations and considering it more accurate than others has no rational basis. It was the primary English Bible for roughly three centuries, even though it went through many revisions, so some regard it (without basis) as the "pure" word of God, forgetting that it is a TRANSLATION.

Personally, I prefer the work of modern scholars who have access to many ancient documents, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, and a large trove of non-Biblical documents that shed light on the meaning of words and idioms. I am baffled by some who regard their work as irrelevant or worse (inspired by Satan). The great English Bibles that we have today are a true treasure.

 

[ElieG12]

The entire Bible was authored by Jews (with one exception: Luke-Acts). All Jesus' disciples were Jews. The entire early church was comprised of Jews. In other words, the Bible is a Jewish "book" (really, a collection of separate writings) written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. The primary "Bible" of Jesus time was the Septuagint, the Old Testament translated into Greek.

What we have today is a plethora of English translations. They are based on many centuries of scholarly work -- textual criticism. (If you don't understand the term, look it up.) Some prefer the King James, which was created in the early 17th Century using the source materials available then as well as existing translations. It is just one of many English translations and considering it more accurate than others has no rational basis. It was the primary English Bible for roughly three centuries, even though it went through many revisions, so some regard it (without basis) as the "pure" word of God, forgetting that it is a TRANSLATION.

Personally, I prefer the work of modern scholars who have access to many ancient documents, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, and a large trove of non-Biblical documents that shed light on the meaning of words and idioms. I am baffled by some who regard their work as irrelevant or worse (inspired by Satan). The great English Bibles that we have today are a true treasure.

I totally agree.

However, even modern scholars' translations with all modern technology and tools, as well as new manuscripts and other material that can help them create advamced "master texts" DOES NOT JUSTIFY some malpractices such as removing the personal name of God from His own written word. On doing that they are opposing the will of God plainly stated in the Scriptures of making His Name known to the whole world.

That, of course, does not nullify their good work at all, but it forces us to be prudent as to whether or how far we should trust everything they produce, since the enemy of God owns this world... The true God's loyal servants defend his Name and collaborate with the fulfillment of his purposes, regardless of what the scholars or scientists of this world say.