Interesting that the Bible is "the Word of God", unless someone quotes a translation you disagree with.
- Thread starter St. SteVen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The logos/word has always been intrinsic to the Father God's spirit from eternity past. They are inseparable. Think about how messages or powerful thoughts or expressions can be created or formed from within the mind of God and then are able to be executed by his spirit, aka Spirit of God or Holy Spirit to produce a desired effect or impact. So, the logos of God never changes, yesterday, today or tomorrow.
Now, the difference before Yahshua is that the logos of (Father) God was used exclusively by himself to create the physical realm. Since Yahshua, God's logos dwelt in the man Yahshua, and is so doing this, it (logos/word + spirit) dwelt amongst us.(I)Emmanuel if you will.
Never before did the Father God's essence dwell in any of his creation. And he had to do this in order for this flesh, Yahshua, to become the perfect and sinless image of himself, his Father God, to fulfill his mission to the Cross and beyond. Without the logos and spirit of his Father resident within Yahshua, he, the Son, would have surely failed his mission.
That sounds like the cart before the horse to me.
Did not the Logos exist before Yahshua?
The Logos became flesh...
/
I believe you did not actually read my post for understanding. Do I have to repeat myself - OF COURSE the logos of God, who is the essence of God himself in spirit, existed before the man Yahshua. I said that in my post.
When I said, "Since Yahshua, God's logos dwelt in the man Yahshua, and is so doing this, it (logos/word + spirit) dwelt amongst us.(I)Emmanuel if you will." This then means that the logos of God ALWAYS exists AND then later suddenly inhabited flesh.
I cannot spell it out any clearer for you.
So what is this 'cart before the horse' all about...?
From the OP.
--- PARODY TIME ---
KJO reader: This is what the Word of God says.
NIV reader: Let's compare the NIV translation.
KJO reader: WHAT! ??? That's a terrible translation!
NIV reader: Are you saying it isn't the "Word of God"?
KJO reader: The NIV left verses out of the Bible!
NIV reader: No, the NIV kept the same verse numbering system
but left out verses that didn't belong there in the first place.
KJO reader: THEY REMOVED VERSES FROM THE BIBLE !!!!
NIV reader: No, that's not what happened.
KJO reader: Yes it is what HAPPENED !!!
NIV reader: Show me one.
KJO reader: Here you go.
NIV reader: My footnote accounts for that.
KJO reader: Accounts for verses removed from the Bible? ???
NIV reader: The footnote says: It does not appear in any New Testament
manuscript prior to the end of the 6th century.
KJO reader: It's NOT the Word of God !!!!
NIV reader: Seriously?
Interesting that the Bible is "the Word of God", unless someone quotes a translation you disagree with.
Do you do that?
/
--- PARODY TIME ---
KJO reader: This is what the Word of God says.
NIV reader: Let's compare the NIV translation.
KJO reader: WHAT! ??? That's a terrible translation!
NIV reader: Are you saying it isn't the "Word of God"?
KJO reader: The NIV left verses out of the Bible!
NIV reader: No, the NIV kept the same verse numbering system
but left out verses that didn't belong there in the first place.
KJO reader: THEY REMOVED VERSES FROM THE BIBLE !!!!
NIV reader: No, that's not what happened.
KJO reader: Yes it is what HAPPENED !!!
NIV reader: Show me one.
KJO reader: Here you go.
NIV reader: My footnote accounts for that.
KJO reader: Accounts for verses removed from the Bible? ???
NIV reader: The footnote says: It does not appear in any New Testament
manuscript prior to the end of the 6th century.
KJO reader: It's NOT the Word of God !!!!
NIV reader: Seriously?
Interesting that the Bible is "the Word of God", unless someone quotes a translation you disagree with.
Do you do that?
/
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Someone told me the KJV was the only Bible they used because it was authorized by a King and God gave authority to Kings so only the KJV was the word of God
LOL
Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
I try not to. I only really have some issues with King Jimmy's translation.
When using biblical quotes from any bible I try to incorporate some from older sources like the Greek interlinear and the Peshitta. (Even they differ in spots)
Occasionally I will refer to the Codex Sinaiticus ... but always get flack for that
I figure the older they are the closer to the time back then and should offer more accuracy?
Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
I should let it go, but being the time of year won'tI do hope your friend knows that God also has appointed all in leadership such as the US Presidents and even ...well, enough of that for now.
I dont follow KJ other then to quote him here as that is a universally known translation.
We are told in the KJV Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
I wonder how many people today know that es'-ter (pascha, from Aramaic paccha' and Hebrew pecach, the Passover festival) is not what Jimmy's men wrote.
They wrote Easter.
The English word comes from the Anglo-Saxon Eastre or Estera, a Teutonic goddess to whom sacrifice was offered in April, so the name was transferred to the paschal feast.
And it needs to be reminded to all when they got around to the NKJV it was corrected.
There are many " bibles", many translations, some good, some bad and biased. So, your statement is not quite accurate. As a result, it becomes our responsibility to sort out the good from the bad so as not to be mislead, and not assume that just because the book says Holy Bible on its cover that it is 100% the word of God. And likewise with the church; just because a building says the words 'church' or 'Jesus', or 'God' on it, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's truly the body of Christ that meets there. But the word of God is still the word of God that we must seek out. I like the KJV: HOWEVER, I'm also aware of it's few anomalies.
LOL
Yup, it's a thing.
Were you the one that gave me this article link? (thanks) Very helpful!
Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101
https://www.bereanpatriot.com/majority-text-vs-critical-text-vs-textus-receptus-textual-criticism-101/#Corruption-of-the-Alexandrian-text-typeI've been providing it to others in need of understanding these issues.
But have yet to find anyone that checked it out. (sigh)
Their mind is made up.
They will not allow themselves to be confused by the facts.
/
That's good.
Thanks again for alerting me to the Peshitta. That was new info to me.
Always new things to learn.
/
Rella ~ I am a woman
Well-Known Member
Here is a clue to help you with the Peshitta.
Type in the verse or book you want to see there and follow it by Peshitta.
You will get a drop down list for just that from the Peshitta because you do not always get the
completed translated ...
But if you want Matt 1
Just type Mathew 1 Peshitta and you will see...
For that I find this easiest to read from my drop down list
Wow. That works great, thanks!
/
I went a little further than just some of the things here.. I try not to say anything but I do have to look up the verse myself to see what it says as I don't recognize it. I hate when they quote a scripture and don't put chapter and verse heck for all I know as I don't recognize it this is just them talking. I actually did research on different bibles... looked up just who was on the board making the changes... there are lots of things even with that.. gays on some of them.. so my research was on the individuals doing the changing also of some of these translations.
I believe what God has to say about it... there is forgiveness for all except one sin but for the word of God changes you want to try to have a holy person to me. I know there are errors in the KJV also but the thing it has is the age plus sealed by a King. No other holy books in the world can claim that one.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
I do discriminate between translations. Not all translations are equal.
I much prefer word-for-word translations (formal) to thought-for-thought translations (dynamic), and I put both of those ahead of paraphrases.
If you want to look at the original language in a concordance or lexicon, it's easy to do with a word-for-word translation (KJV, ESV). Once you know the meaning of the underlying word, you can carry that knowledge to every place where the same word occurs in English. You can't do that with with a dynamic translation (NIV), and this is important to me.
But formal translations tend to be clunky and lack flow. Some words don't have a good 1-to-1 equivalent between languages. The YLT shows what happens when you carry formal translation methods to their extreme - comprehensible not sometimes the English is. (I think Yoda may have been an editor).
Paraphrases have the easiest-to-understand English (Living Bible), but they aren't true translations. You're really reading someone else's understanding of some other version of the Bible. These are suitable for children.
There are a few Bibles that I regard as corrupt, usually because they have ADDED to the text. The Amplified Bible includes a massive amount of commentary that shows up as part of the text. The Scofield Bible has a huge bias in favor of... a particular end-times position... and uses chain-references and in-line commentary throughout to either make passages support that position, or explain away passages that don't support it. There are other chain-reference Bibles as well, and they tend to have the same problem, though not always the same theological bias.
edit: FWIW, the gold-standard Bible for those who are serious about studying the Bible is the NRESVUE, which is a modernization of the Revised Standard Version.
Last edited:
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
How about a Muslim, or a Buddhist? That probably doesn't come up much...
How about Mormons? The LDS church has been one of the best at preserving and translating historical texts.
Similar threads
