Bible Problem

[RLT63]

Wait...
Doesn't it MEAN the opposite.
"When I took your watch, I thought it was NOT robbery."
Did I take it, or didn't I?
Was it robbery, or wasn't it?

If the almighty savior didn’t consider it robbery I have to agree with him

The KJV is based on a limited number of Medieval manuscripts, is based partly on earlier translations, and was ordered by a secular king to bolster his claim to be a ruler. Modern translations are created by scholars from a large collection of sources and reviewed by a committee of people from various denominations to make sure that there is no sectarian bias.

That is the difference.

And despite all that there is very little difference between modern versions and Westcott and Hort’s version. They are mostly in agreement. What’s in question is whether the material excluded in modern versions should be in the Bible or not.

 

[RLT63]

Clearly you have not even looked at modern translations. They clearly indicate to the reader what were not in the manuscripts by italicization. And often provide additional explanatory notes. The NET translation has over 65,000(!) such notes.

And they indicate those parts of Scripture that are highly questionable, such as the "long ending" of Mark's gospel. (Watch out for those snakes while you drink deadly poison!) and don't add words such as these in Romans 8:1 : "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Don't worship a book; worship God!!!

I really like the NET Full Notes edition

 

[RLT63]

Child abusers who prefer violence to instruction.

The rod to a shepherd is used for more than correction, it is used to guide the sheep and show them the way. But there is nothing wrong with spanking. It worked on me.

 

[Netchaplain]

Clearly you have not even looked at modern translations. They clearly indicate to the reader what were not in the manuscripts by italicization. And often provide additional explanatory notes. The NET translation has over 65,000(!) such notes.

And they indicate those parts of Scripture that are highly questionable, such as the "long ending" of Mark's gospel. (Watch out for those snakes while you drink deadly poison!) and don't add words such as these in Romans 8:1 : "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Don't worship a book; worship God!!!

I think we have exchanged enough opinions on this subject to end our communication on it. After so long it just becomes repetitious and not necessary to carry on the discussion. Thanks though for the sincere replies, and may the Holy Spirit eventually "guide us into all truth" (Jhn 16:13). God bless Brother!

 

[St. SteVen]

If the almighty savior didn’t consider it robbery I have to agree with him

Right, It wasn't robbery. That the problem with the KJV.

 

[St. SteVen]

But there is nothing wrong with spanking. It worked on me.

There's a topic. - LOL

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Currently reading this article provided by @RLT63 -- link below
Author makes the statement that it is better to judge a work on its merits than by the translators personal views.
I think the slam on Westcott and Hort is mostly a KJO apologetic in defense of their translation.
The KJO folks even criticize other translations for REMOVING verses. - LOL
(verses that should not have been there in the first place actually)

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

What triggered me was that their source was from Alexandria, the home of Gnostics.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I think we're too far apart from any use of continuing on this subject.

I don't believe that. I haver done enormous studies on textual evidence and manuscripts. I am just wanting to find out what you have learned to uphold the TR as infallible.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The majority of modern translations omit the same passages, only a few retain some of them but still omit much; but all omit entire passage of 1Jn 5:7--the primary Trinity Scripture.

And they footnote it (AFAIK). Let us face it, when it only appears in the TR and no earlier manuscripts, and some evidence points to it being a footnote in some copies, it is a controversial passage. It is 100% true and the trinity can be explicitly defended without that verse that may or may not have been in the earlier centuries.

And I gave you the ratio of tranlsations that have or have not the verses you listed.

You can find them all on Bible Hub.com

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The majority of modern translations omit the same passages, only a few retain some of them but still omit much; but all omit entire passage of 1Jn 5:7--the primary Trinity Scripture.

And they footnote it (AFAIK). Let us face it, when it only appears in the TR and no earlier manuscripts, and some evidence points to it being a footnote in some copies, it is a controversial passage. It is 100% true and the trinity can be explicitly defended without that verse that may or may not have been in the earlier centuries.

And I gave you the ratio of tranlsations that have or have not the verses you listed.

You can find them all on Bible Hub.com

The Vaticanus and Sinaitcus both fell into disuse from 381AD to 1881AD due to being to inconsistent with most of extant manuscripts, and so were never use by anyone for copying purposes for 1500 years, until they recently found them.

aand what evidence do you have for your conclusions? I am not doubting you, but I am curious as to the evidence you have.

 

[RLT63]

Right, It wasn't robbery. That the problem with the KJV.

I don’t see a problem. The other versions say virtually the same thing using other words. I understand the KJV and the modern version I have no problem with anyone using either

 

[1stCenturyLady]

I don't believe that. I haver done enormous studies on textual evidence and manuscripts. I am just wanting to find out what you have learned to uphold the TR as infallible.

Haven't you noticed that the words that are missing in the modern versions are very important when it comes to correct doctrine? The TR is more correct than the Alexandrian texts.

 

[RLT63]

Haven't you noticed that the words that are missing in the modern versions are very important when it comes to correct doctrine? The TR is more correct than the Alexandrian texts.

I have a preference for the Majority Text, not the TR although they are very close

 

[St. SteVen]

What triggered me was that their source was from Alexandria, the home of Gnostics.

Also the home of the Coptic (Egyptian) Church. (early Christian)

 

[St. SteVen]

I don’t see a problem. The other versions say virtually the same thing using other words. I understand the KJV and the modern version I have no problem with anyone using either

What do you think about the use of neutral gender/pronouns in modern translations?

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Also the home of the Coptic (Egyptian) Church. (early Christian)

I wonder how their beliefs differ if they do.

 

[RLT63]

What do you think about the use of neutral gender/pronouns in modern translations?

If it replaces man with something like people when it’s talking about men and women I really wouldn’t have a problem with that. But if it’s done throughout the Bible to appeal to a certain group of people I wouldn’t support that. God is the Father so I wouldn’t refer to him with gender neutral pronouns.

 

[St. SteVen]

I wonder how their beliefs differ if they do.

Not sure. Probably closer to Eastern Orthodox than Roman Catholic.

The early church spread from the east (Eastern Orthodoxy/Russian Orthodoxy) to the west
(Latin/Roman Catholic) to the south (Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy).

Unfortunately, we got our Bible from the western/Latin church.
And with it came the western/Latin doctrinal bias in translation.
Not to mention the politics involved.
It's been "hell" ever since. - LOL

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Not sure. Probably closer to Eastern Orthodox than Roman Catholic.

The early church spread from the east (Eastern Orthodoxy/Russian Orthodoxy) to the west
(Latin/Roman Catholic) to the south (Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy).

Unfortunately, we got our Bible from the western/Latin church.
And with it came the western/Latin bias in translation.
It's been "hell" ever since. - LOL

For a long time I though EO didn't pray to Mary like Roman Catholics do, but I was wrong. Thyatira applies to them as well.

 

[Netchaplain]

And they footnote it (AFAIK). Let us face it, when it only appears in the TR and no earlier manuscripts, and some evidence points to it being a footnote in some copies, it is a controversial passage. It is 100% true and the trinity can be explicitly defended without that verse that may or may not have been in the earlier centuries.

And I gave you the ratio of tranlsations that have or have not the verses you listed.

You can find them all on Bible Hub.com

aand what evidence do you have for your conclusions? I am not doubting you, but I am curious as to the evidence you have.

To me, the main error of the modern translations are the omissions. If one nit-picks at omissions in the Majority Text, one could also bulk-pick from the Minority Text. I would be spending my time in a translation that I know contains the entire Word. That's not beyond possible with the Minority Text. I think they have about 30% at least less Scripture.