Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
You are not showing respect for God or the scriptures, you focus on a translation.
Thoughts about using a KJV update?
- Thread starter BibleBeliever5
- 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!
You are not showing respect for God or the scriptures, you focus on a translation.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
This is not a good argument, friend. Many in the “Originals Only Camp” feel they have to look to dead languages (Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek) that is virtually impossible to know in order to understand God's Word. One has to trust blindly on recent scholars and their definitions. But these men are the Revisers or the ones who departed from the King James Bible that existed as the standard for hundreds of years. Also, just because the King James uses words that are archaic at times does not mean it is not God's Word. Many times Jesus spoke in parables to the Jews and they did not understand what He meant by them. Jesus spoke of His death and resurrection with His disciples before the cross and they had no clue as to what He was talking about. However, Jesus could have sat the disciples down and used hand puppets to illustrate what was about to happen, but He did not do that. This is why we are to study to show ourselves approved unto God according to 2 Timothy 2:15. However, this verse or command is altered in Modern Bibles. For the devil does not want you to study God's Word.
Side Note:
Oh, and it's not that I don't use Modern English Bibles. I do. But they are simply not my final Word of authority. I merely use them to help see what the King James Bible is saying sometimes. But sometimes I just define a word using an older dictionary, etcetera. But the point here is that there can only be one Word of God and not many. Not all bibles say the exact same thing. One has to choose one and not many. Not even all manuscripts say the same thing. Again, one has to choose.
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Bible Highlighter said:
It's not wrong. I was quoting Wikipedia on the Nestle and Aland Text page. What advantage do they have to lie?
For example: Go to the NIV page for Wikipedia. Then do a word search for the word “Nestle.” (Note: PC: Keyboard function: Control + F) (Note: MAC: Keyboard function: Command + F) and then enter the word “Nestle” and hit enter or return.
In fact, do this for all the Modern Bibles listed at Wikipedia and you will see it for yourself.
New International Version - Wikipedia
English Standard Version - Wikipedia
New Living Translation - Wikipedia
New American Standard Bible - Wikipedia
Christian Standard Bible - Wikipedia
If you think Wikipedia is lying, then go to the official websites and you will see them that they use the Nestle and Aland as its textual basis.
Textual Basis - NIV Bible
Preface to the English Standard Version | ESV.org
https://nlt.to/DiscoverTheNLT/FAQ/ (Note: Click on the question called, “What texts did the NLT translators use in their translation work?”).
More Information about NASB 1995 – Lockman Foundation
What is the CSB's translation philosophy and how does it compare to other translations? Archives - Page 2 of 5 - CSB
Oh, and by the way, the Biblia Hebraica is used for many of your Modern English Bibles (Which was for the Old Testament), too. This text was translated by a German named Rudolf Kittel. Rudolph Kittel demonstrated anti semitic tendencies in private and popular expression. His son joined the Nazi party.
You can learn more about Rudolf (not the reindeer) here at Encyclopedia.com.
So as you can see, these Modern Bibles have dark origins. Lots of them. You keep digging and it gets worse whereby you want to puke. But most just like to bury their heads in the sand these days.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
To all:
#1. The controversy over which English Bible to use all started with Westcott and Hort (who secretly held to heretical beliefs). They are the founding fathers of the Modern English Bible movement. Today: Most of your Modern English Bibles are based on the Critical Text (Nestle & Aland 28th Edition - whereby they significantly use the Westcott and Hort New Testament Greek Critical Text) (Note: NT = New Testament). The Nestle and Aland Critical Text (Updated Westcott and Hort text) was under the supervision of the Vatican (Note: I can prove this again in this thread for anyone who is interested). The manuscripts used to create the Greek NT Critical Text are Alexandrian in origin. The Critical Text (for the NT text) is based primarily on the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. The Old Testament for the Critical Text is the Biblia Hebraica translated by a man named Rudolf Kittel. Rudolf Kittel was never mentioned as being a Bible believing Christian. Rudolf Kittel demonstrated anti semitic tendencies in private and popular expression (See Enyclopedia.com here to learn more about him). His son Gerhard Kittel was one of his closest aides on the translation and Gerhard turned out to be a Nazi in Hitler's movement.
#2. The King James Bible 1611 to Cambridge 1900 KJB Edition are based on the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts for the New Testament, and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament. The Textus Receptus (TR) for the New Testament is Byzantine in origin. Erasmus created the TR based off certain manuscript evidence. There are other sources the King James Translators used besides the TR. They looked at the Syriac Peshitta, the Old Latin Bible, etcetera. The 17 major verses that are omitted in the Critical Text (Used by all Modern English Bibles - but is retained in the TR and KJB) can be found in statements made by early church fathers.
#1. The controversy over which English Bible to use all started with Westcott and Hort (who secretly held to heretical beliefs). They are the founding fathers of the Modern English Bible movement. Today: Most of your Modern English Bibles are based on the Critical Text (Nestle & Aland 28th Edition - whereby they significantly use the Westcott and Hort New Testament Greek Critical Text) (Note: NT = New Testament). The Nestle and Aland Critical Text (Updated Westcott and Hort text) was under the supervision of the Vatican (Note: I can prove this again in this thread for anyone who is interested). The manuscripts used to create the Greek NT Critical Text are Alexandrian in origin. The Critical Text (for the NT text) is based primarily on the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. The Old Testament for the Critical Text is the Biblia Hebraica translated by a man named Rudolf Kittel. Rudolf Kittel was never mentioned as being a Bible believing Christian. Rudolf Kittel demonstrated anti semitic tendencies in private and popular expression (See Enyclopedia.com here to learn more about him). His son Gerhard Kittel was one of his closest aides on the translation and Gerhard turned out to be a Nazi in Hitler's movement.
#2. The King James Bible 1611 to Cambridge 1900 KJB Edition are based on the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts for the New Testament, and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament. The Textus Receptus (TR) for the New Testament is Byzantine in origin. Erasmus created the TR based off certain manuscript evidence. There are other sources the King James Translators used besides the TR. They looked at the Syriac Peshitta, the Old Latin Bible, etcetera. The 17 major verses that are omitted in the Critical Text (Used by all Modern English Bibles - but is retained in the TR and KJB) can be found in statements made by early church fathers.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
The New American Standard Bible (NASB) translation was created by The Lockman Foundation. It is especially faithful to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ...
The NASB has been produced with the conviction that the words of Scripture, as originally penned in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, are inspired by God.
The translators of the NIV have used the Old Testament and New Testament texts that are widely accepted among modern scholars as giving us the best possible access to what God inspired in the original documents.
The New American Standard Bible is considered by some sources as the most literally translated of major 20th-century English Bible translations. The NASB is an original translation from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, based on the same principles of translation, and wording, as the American Standard Version
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Best I can tell those that do not like modern translations want to suggest that they used Nestle and Aland's work primarily.
I imagine they looked at several sources but the NIV and NASB are mostly interested in the manuscripts, as it were new translations.
Since I own more than one copy of these Bibles it does not appear they had any interest in translating from anyone's prior work. For one it would associate themselves to the technics of the King James Version the induced so may errors. Not to mention the copywrite issues. If they were quoting or duplicating from Nestle and Aland's work they would have to make that obvious. Nestle and Aland's work is definitely copywrited.
I imagine they looked at several sources but the NIV and NASB are mostly interested in the manuscripts, as it were new translations.
Since I own more than one copy of these Bibles it does not appear they had any interest in translating from anyone's prior work. For one it would associate themselves to the technics of the King James Version the induced so may errors. Not to mention the copywrite issues. If they were quoting or duplicating from Nestle and Aland's work they would have to make that obvious. Nestle and Aland's work is definitely copywrited.
Last edited:
Rollo Tamasi
Well-Known Member
So I assume you think the apochrypha is the word of God since it originally appeared in the KJV 1611.
They had to go back and get rid of it.
Why?
Weren't the original writers inspired enough to get it straight?
How about the flight of the Phoenix in Job?
Oh right, your Bible doesn't have that because they took it out.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
I will reply to only one part of your bizarre post. Which version of the Nestle and Aland was used in the modern translations? Version 8, version 9, or ..? You seem to think that the Nestle and Aland is frozen in time, like your antiquated KJV. You are, as usual, blinded by your bias.
As I pointed out earlier, my favorite translation uses the Nestle and Aland as a starting point, then makes changes as they deem appropriate. I assume that others do also. Your rigid, accusatory nonsense is growing old.
BTW, your beloved KJV was created under the direct supervision of a secular king, making it less reliable than modern translations that seek accuracy and truth.
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Christians did not regard the Apocrypha as authoritative Scripture.
It was merely in there for historical reasons.
But like I said, the KJB was purified seven times just as the words of the Lord are purified seven times as mentioned in Psalms 12:6-7.
Meaning, there are seven MAJOR KJB Editions (official translations that had an influence upon others). The final purified settled edition was the Pure Cambridge Edition KJB (circa. 1900).
You said:
First, a simple search at BibleGateWay will show that this rendering of “phoenix” in Job 29:18 instead of “sand” appears only in a very small number of Modern English translations. So if you are a Modern English Translation fan, this is not a good argument to make. Second, the idea of a bird rising from the ashes of fire undoes the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If it was common for a certain type of bird to just rise from dead, then Christ’s resurrection should not be all that amazing because it happens in nature (according to your view of wanting the Phoenix bird to exist). Again, this sounds more like myth and legend infiltrating the Bible, or some kind of story from the X-men and not the Bible.
Besides, you don’t appear to be aware of two BIG problems with Modern English Bibles.
Problem #1. - They teach false doctrine.
Problem #2. - They are influenced by the Vatican.
Please see post #254 and read my three following subsequent posts after that (i.e. posts #254-257). If after you don’t see it after carefully reading it, I cannot help you. Only God then can reveal such a truth to you (if you are open to it).
Jim B
Well-Known Member
King James had a clear agenda: to make the Bible agree with his personal view of Christianity: to glorify himself and make it plain that nobody is to challenge his authority. He clearly opposed earlier English translations that showed, either in Scripture or in explanatory notes, that secular rule was not the same as God's rule.
It saddens me that some people, four centuries later, are still under the delusion that the work of modern translations, whose goal is to translate the earliest texts as accurately as possible, with no political agenda, is less reliable than the KJV. Generally, as is clearly the case with Bible Highlighter, this attitude transfers to a hatred of political liberals, thereby not understanding Christ's message: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke on you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Matthew 11:28-29, NET
It saddens me that some people, four centuries later, are still under the delusion that the work of modern translations, whose goal is to translate the earliest texts as accurately as possible, with no political agenda, is less reliable than the KJV. Generally, as is clearly the case with Bible Highlighter, this attitude transfers to a hatred of political liberals, thereby not understanding Christ's message: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke on you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Matthew 11:28-29, NET
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
You appear to be stuck on what edition of the Nestle and Aland. My point was that the Nestle and Aland was supervised by the Vatican. This is clearly revealed in the 27th edition, and we seen this influence the actual text by a PDF document of 14 verses that favor the Catholic Church (that you ignored). Unless your Catholic, you should not make a Modern Bible your final Word of authority. That’s my point that escapes you.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
There is no doubt that Modern English Bibles are extremely helpful in updating the archaic language found in the King James Bible. But the Modern English bibles cannot be our final Word of authority. If you were to simply investigate the history of the two men who started the Modern English Translation movement (Westcott and Hort) and investigate what they believed, you will see where I am coming from. But most like to just see what they want to see these days and not do an unbiased search on the matter. You are of the Originals Only movement (Pushed by Modern Scholars), and anything that attacks that position must be false.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Bible Highlighter, when are you going to stop these lies regarding modern translations? => Problem #1. - They teach false doctrine.
Problem #2. - They are influenced by the Vatican. <=
1) They don't "teach" anything; they're books. They are accurate translations of the earliest and best sources.
2) They aren't "influenced by the Vatican". Their goal is to translate the earliest sources without regard to any particular ideology.
Conversely, your beloved KJV was specifically created to bolster the rule of a secular King, not to communicate the truth of God's word. You are clearly blinded and full of hate!
Problem #2. - They are influenced by the Vatican. <=
1) They don't "teach" anything; they're books. They are accurate translations of the earliest and best sources.
2) They aren't "influenced by the Vatican". Their goal is to translate the earliest sources without regard to any particular ideology.
Conversely, your beloved KJV was specifically created to bolster the rule of a secular King, not to communicate the truth of God's word. You are clearly blinded and full of hate!
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
To all:
Modern Bibles cannot be your authority because they are influenced by Rome, they teach false doctrine, and they don’t all say the same exact thing. Not even the Alexandrian manuscripts (used for the Nestle and Aland) all say the same thing. Not all manuscripts in general do not say the same thing. So one has to do a test to see which writings show the marks of the divine or purity or goodness. Most just want to blindly follow the scholars words and repeat his mantra of “Originals Only are Perfect” without them really investigating things for themselves.
Modern Bibles cannot be your authority because they are influenced by Rome, they teach false doctrine, and they don’t all say the same exact thing. Not even the Alexandrian manuscripts (used for the Nestle and Aland) all say the same thing. Not all manuscripts in general do not say the same thing. So one has to do a test to see which writings show the marks of the divine or purity or goodness. Most just want to blindly follow the scholars words and repeat his mantra of “Originals Only are Perfect” without them really investigating things for themselves.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
It certainly does "escape me", since it's total nonsense. Why are you so deluded to think that Catholics consider any Bible, modern or not, to be the final word of authority?
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Jim B
Well-Known Member
From the web...
The Novum Testamentum Graece was first published in 1898 by Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt (Germany). It was edited by Eberhard Nestle and followed a simple but nevertheless ingenious principle: Nestle compared the three most significant editions of the Greek New Testament from the 19th century (Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort, and Weymouth; the last mentioned was replaced by the edition of B. Weiss in 1901). Wherever one of these versions differed from the other two, Nestle adopted the reading given in the two identical versions and supplied a note in the apparatus showing the divergent reading. By this means, he grouped together the best findings of New Testament textual research from the 19th century and prevented one-sided views from becoming established. Nestles edition, due to its wide distribution, ultimately displaced the “Textus Receptus”, which among scholars had already long become obsolete, in churches and schools.
The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, from its first edition to the present day, has provided an outstanding working text suitable for study and research, as well as for church and school use, in a compact, affordable edition. It puts its readers in a position to make their own judgments in matters of New Testament textual research. An international and interconfessional editorial board is currently preparing the 29th edition. It will bring many changes, especially in the Gospel of Mark and the Acts of the Apostles.
Before reading an analysis of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, one should first become familiar with the topic of textual criticism. Until the reader has some understanding of textual criticism, a discussion of Greek New Testaments may be of little value.
In short, the original New Testament manuscripts written by the hand of Paul or Luke or Matthew no longer exist. We have copies (full and partial) of these manuscripts ranging over a long period of time and a wide geography. As with any effort at copying, sometimes the copyist will make mistakes. If the mistakes are not recognized and corrected, they will be reproduced in the next generation of copies.
Some translators believe that one should simply accept the reading that occurs the most often in the manuscripts. They advocate for the Majority Text. Others think that the Greek text that is the basis of the King James Version is the best to follow. These advocate the “received text” or, in Latin, the Textus Receptus. Finally, most scholars today prefer the eclectic text, such as represented by the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. This is a text that has been reconstructed by careful study of all available manuscripts using textual criticism.
Textual criticism is the art and science of comparing all the places where the copies differ and determining what the original wording must have been—the wording that can best explain all the differences.
While the thought of “mistakes” in the text of the Bible and “reconstructing” the original wording may sound frightening to some believers, we should note that there are relatively few instances where the exact wording is unclear, and, of these instances, there is only a tiny minority where the actual meaning is affected. In no instance is any major doctrine affected.
The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is the Greek text often preferred by Bible scholars and researchers because of the extensive notes and cross references, including reasons a particular reading was chosen over an alternative reading. (This is known as the critical apparatus or the textual apparatus.) The NA28 runs about 1,000 pages.
The Greek text used in the NA28 is identical to that used in the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, which is another popular Greek New Testament.
"So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:1-59 ESV
The Novum Testamentum Graece was first published in 1898 by Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt (Germany). It was edited by Eberhard Nestle and followed a simple but nevertheless ingenious principle: Nestle compared the three most significant editions of the Greek New Testament from the 19th century (Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort, and Weymouth; the last mentioned was replaced by the edition of B. Weiss in 1901). Wherever one of these versions differed from the other two, Nestle adopted the reading given in the two identical versions and supplied a note in the apparatus showing the divergent reading. By this means, he grouped together the best findings of New Testament textual research from the 19th century and prevented one-sided views from becoming established. Nestles edition, due to its wide distribution, ultimately displaced the “Textus Receptus”, which among scholars had already long become obsolete, in churches and schools.
The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, from its first edition to the present day, has provided an outstanding working text suitable for study and research, as well as for church and school use, in a compact, affordable edition. It puts its readers in a position to make their own judgments in matters of New Testament textual research. An international and interconfessional editorial board is currently preparing the 29th edition. It will bring many changes, especially in the Gospel of Mark and the Acts of the Apostles.
Before reading an analysis of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, one should first become familiar with the topic of textual criticism. Until the reader has some understanding of textual criticism, a discussion of Greek New Testaments may be of little value.
In short, the original New Testament manuscripts written by the hand of Paul or Luke or Matthew no longer exist. We have copies (full and partial) of these manuscripts ranging over a long period of time and a wide geography. As with any effort at copying, sometimes the copyist will make mistakes. If the mistakes are not recognized and corrected, they will be reproduced in the next generation of copies.
Some translators believe that one should simply accept the reading that occurs the most often in the manuscripts. They advocate for the Majority Text. Others think that the Greek text that is the basis of the King James Version is the best to follow. These advocate the “received text” or, in Latin, the Textus Receptus. Finally, most scholars today prefer the eclectic text, such as represented by the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. This is a text that has been reconstructed by careful study of all available manuscripts using textual criticism.
Textual criticism is the art and science of comparing all the places where the copies differ and determining what the original wording must have been—the wording that can best explain all the differences.
While the thought of “mistakes” in the text of the Bible and “reconstructing” the original wording may sound frightening to some believers, we should note that there are relatively few instances where the exact wording is unclear, and, of these instances, there is only a tiny minority where the actual meaning is affected. In no instance is any major doctrine affected.
The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is the Greek text often preferred by Bible scholars and researchers because of the extensive notes and cross references, including reasons a particular reading was chosen over an alternative reading. (This is known as the critical apparatus or the textual apparatus.) The NA28 runs about 1,000 pages.
The Greek text used in the NA28 is identical to that used in the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, which is another popular Greek New Testament.
"So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:1-59 ESV
Jim B
Well-Known Member
Many consider the King James Version of the Bible to be the crown of English Bibles. Even at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Greek text used in preparing the KJV was the Textus Receptus. It was not created using the art/science of textual criticism, which seeks to produce Scripture that is as accurate as possible, i.e., as close to the earliest and best manuscripts.
Jim B
Well-Known Member
You call that propaganda truth? You must be joking. John 8:31-32, "Then Jesus said to those Judeans who had believed him, “If you continue to follow my teaching, you are really my disciples and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Not enslave you to an earthly monarch; set you free.
The truth lies in Christ alone, not in a biased translation, created for one purpose only: to justify the authoritarian rule of an English king. He was incensed that earlier translations questioned the authority of a secular king so he ordered a translation that glorified him, not God.
It's amazing that people still fall for this deception. Again, see my "signature" below.
Similar threads
