A false view of matthew 4:4?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Wakeup @ Feb. 10 2014,17:33)

I'll see you in some other place Mike.

Not if I see you first!

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 10 2014,05:09)

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 09 2014,22:18) Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 03 2013,00:07) It is written: Matthew 4:4 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Some believe: Matthew 4:4 An interpretation of the Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by the preexistent Christ. Is it truth or tradition? Why? To all, This is the real topic of this thread and other topics are addressed other places.  If your conversation changes so it no longer is linked to this topic could you please take it to a more appropriate thread.  Thank you. k you could have done this months ago but did not why now

T,

I do not know.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 12 2014,08:12)

Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 10 2014,05:09) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 09 2014,22:18) Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 03 2013,00:07) It is written: Matthew 4:4 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Some believe: Matthew 4:4 An interpretation of the Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by the preexistent Christ. Is it truth or tradition? Why? To all, This is the real topic of this thread and other topics are addressed other places.  If your conversation changes so it no longer is linked to this topic could you please take it to a more appropriate thread.  Thank you. k you could have done this months ago but did not why now T, I do not know.

[journey42]

mikeboll64,Feb. wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

Wakeup and journey, What is your end goal here? Is it your goal to say the NIV is ALSO a “perfect” translation, “inspired by God Himself”, because it also substitutes the divine NAME God gave us for Himself with the words “the LORD”?

Never ever will I say the NIV is a perfect translation, but just another counterfeit version, watered down with time, and taking away Christ's position where-ever the opportunity arises.

KJV
Philippians 4:13   I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

NIV
Philipians 4:13   I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

Can you honestly say that the name Christ should not be there?

NIV 1984
1 Timothy 2:12   I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

NIV 2011
1 Timothy 2:12    I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Is Assume the same as “having authority”?
I don't think so.
I hardly think this is a “perfect” version.

Mike,
You wanted me to take this slowly, one point at a time, yet you bombard me with so much on one post.
Take it a little slower please. It's putting me off answering. You are trying to overwhelm me.
and doing a good job

[journey42]

journey42,Feb. wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

Is it your goal to say that the Antioch mss have the divine name 6728 times, while the Egyptian mss only have the divine name 6512 times, so therefore the KJV is justified in writing the divine name a mere FOUR times?

Mike,
can you prove it.  Who gave you that information?

Quote

The fact of the matter…….. and I want you both to listen very carefully here……….. is that GOD inspired the scriptures.  And GOD inspired the Hebrew scriptures to be written with His NAME (not a title) over 6500 times.

God inspired the scriptures, and he also inspired the translation, so his Word would go out PRESERVED, unchanged, and exactly as he intended it.  He is God, he CAN perform this.  Do you believe this?  
GOD DOES NOT DELIVER A FAULTY TRANSLATION, WHEN IT COMES TO HIS CHILDREN, WHO HAVE HUNGERED AND THIRST FOR HIS TRUTH, SUCKED ON THE BREASTS FROM YOUNG WITH DEAR LIFE, AND EATEN THE SOLIDS HE HAS GIVEN THEM.  HE DOES NOT DECEIVE THEM.

BUT HAS DELIVERED A FAULTY TRANSLATION TO THOSE WHO DOUBT HE PRESERVED HIS WORD.  HE HAS LED THEM INTO DELUSION.  AND DON'T THINK THAT HE CANNOT DO THIS.  HE IS IN CHARGE OF EVERYTHING.  IF WE DOUBT HIS WORD DELIVERED TO US, WE ARE GUILTY AND BELONG TO THIS SAME CATEGORY BELOW.

2 Thessalonians 2:11   And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2 Thessalonians 2:12   That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Just knowing your character now Mike, I know what you will answer.
but I say this to anyone who is wasting all this time by going to Hebrew and Greek and false translations. YOU ARE WASTING PRECIOUS TIME.  Hindering your spirit to grow fast in these perilous times.  You might be a good person, but you are not GOD FEARING, because we were warned not to feed on strange flesh, and that the world is getting more evil with time, and the devil has come with a flood after the saints, therefore his weapon is to destroy God's truth.  YET YOU REFUSE TO SEE THIS because you find it hard understanding God's truth because of all that stuff you have been brainwashed with from THE WORLD.  

I wipe my hands clean.

Quote

The NWT is one of the few that honor GOD'S will by keeping that NAME (not title) in their translation wherever that NAME (not title) was written by the original writers of those scriptures. There are a few other Bibles that do the same (although some of them translate the divine name as “Yahweh” instead of “Jehovah”). The NIV doesn't have that name in it once.  Neither does the NET.  The KJV has it only four times. But the point is that it doesn't matter how many of them OMIT God's divine name, that was originally written into those scriptures by the original writers of those scriptures.  Because that NAME was indeed written into EVERY Hebrew ms over 6500 times.  And if that NAME was written in the original mss, then NOBODY has a right to OMIT that NAME, and substitute it with a TITLE like “the LORD”. I'm now going to ask a very simple question of both of you.  I know in advance that Wakeup will avoid giving a DIRECT answer to the question, and choose to divert the discussion away from that question.  I know this, because that is Wakeup's norm. I am, however, hopeful that journey will honestly and directly answer the question. Here it is: If the Greek mss have the NAME “Jesus” written in certain verses, should we faithfully translate it AS the name “Jesus” – EVERY time it is written in the Greek mss as “Jesus”? Or is it okay if we just up and decide to OMIT the NAME “Jesus”, and substitute it with the TITLE “Lord”, or “Master”, or “Rabbi”, etc. ? In other words, should we translate the Greek mss AS THEY WERE WRITTEN?  Or ALTER them to suit our own personal preference? Which one, please?

DON'T ASK ME ABOUT TRANSLATING.  I AM NOT QUALIFIED.  IF I WAS, THEN I WOULD OF BEEN BORN IN ANOTHER PLACE IN TIME, AND HANDPICKED BY GOD HIMSELF.

Trust that God has done this already, when he handpicked the interpreters and sent out his word to the gentiles, on a massive scale, like never before in history, EVER.
and till today, his word has not changed one bit, nor has he modernised his word,
but it remains the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow,
 and it was issued out and sealed by the authority of a King, ….King James,  and his group of interpreters, were all God's doing behind the scenes.  THIS IS DONE FOR US ALREADY.  AMEN.  
IN GOD WE TRUST.

[Wakeup]

Quote (journey42 @ Feb. 12 2014,14:37)

mikeboll64,Feb. wrote: [/quote] Quote Wakeup and journey, What is your end goal here? Is it your goal to say the NIV is ALSO a “perfect” translation, “inspired by God Himself”, because it also substitutes the divine NAME God gave us for Himself with the words “the LORD”?   Never ever will I say the NIV is a perfect translation, but just another counterfeit version, watered down with time, and taking away Christ's position where-ever the opportunity arises. KJV Philippians 4:13   I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. NIV Philipians 4:13   I can do all this through him who gives me strength. Can you honestly say that the name Christ should not be there? NIV 1984 1 Timothy 2:12   I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. NIV 2011 1 Timothy 2:12    I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. Is Assume the same as “having authority”? I don't think so. I hardly think this is a “perfect” version. Mike, You wanted me to take this slowly, one point at a time, yet you bombard me with so much on one post.   Take it a little slower please.  It's putting me off answering.  You are trying to overwhelm me. and doing a good job

J42.

Through him; him could be anybody.
Could be him the false prophet.

wakeup.

[journey42]

Wakeup,Feb. wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

Through him; him could be anybody. Could be him the false prophet.

Hi Wakeup,

Thats right.  Here is another version.
I had to keep going back to see if I had the right verse.

NWT
Philipians 4:13   For all things I have the strength through the one who gives me power.

KJV
Philippians 4:13   I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

NIV
Philipians 4:13   I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

[Wakeup]

Quote (journey42 @ Feb. 13 2014,00:49)

Wakeup,Feb. wrote: [/quote] Quote Through him; him could be anybody. Could be him the false prophet. Hi Wakeup, Thats right.  Here is another version. I had to keep going back to see if I had the right verse. NWT Philipians 4:13   For all things I have the strength through the one who gives me power. KJV Philippians 4:13   I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. NIV Philipians 4:13   I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

J42.

We have to watch those scribes and pharisees.
They are out to get Christ Jesus out of the bible
one step at the time. The new generations will not tell the difference.

wakeup.

[mikeboll64]

You two are funny for me.  

You sit here DEFENDING the translation that took GOD'S name out of the Bible over 6500 times, but then bitch about the name of God's SERVANT being omitted just once!  

Which NAME is more important?  The God who created you?  Or His humble SERVANT Jesus Christ?

You guys are too blind to even see that the REASON the NAME of Jehovah is omitted is because these translators want people to think of only one name when thinking of God Almighty.  And the name they want people to think about is “Jesus Christ”.

In fact, the majority of Christians don't even know God has a name of His own.  If you ask them the proper NAME of God, they'll tell you “Jesus”.

Satan has surely had his hand in all of this.  Thank God for the JWs, and for all the others who chose to leave the divine proper name of God in the scriptures, instead of omitting it.

I was also cracking up to hear you guys saying, “through him – could be anybody”, and “They are out to get Christ Jesus out of the bible”.    

Why can't you use that same argument for the name of the God who created you?  Because “the Lord” could also be anybody, since the scriptures are FULL OF various different lords.  And why doesn't Wakeup say those same words about the “scribes and Pharisees” who worked so hard to get JEHOVAH out of the Bible?  

The bottom line is that however many times the Hebrew WRITERS of the scriptures wrote God's divine name, that's how many times that NAME should also be in the English translations.

If the Greek text SAYS “Jesus”, then TRANSLATE AS “Jesus”.

If the Hebrew text SAYS “YHWH”, then TRANSLATE AS “YHWH” (“Jehovah”, “Yahweh”, etc.)

Anyway, here are the NETNotes concerning Philippians 4:13:

Although some excellent witnesses lack explicit reference to the one strengthening Paul (so א* A B D* I 33 1739 lat co Cl), the majority of witnesses (א2 D2 [F G] Ψ 075 1881 Ï sy) add Χριστῷ (Cristw) here (thus, “through Christ who strengthens me”).

But this kind of reading is patently secondary, and is a predictable variant.

Further, the shorter reading is much harder, for it leaves the agent unspecified.

The original Greek word was τῷ .  And here are some of the commonly used Greek mss:

Nestle GNT 1904
πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με.

Westcott and Hort 1881
πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με.

Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με.

RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με χριστῷ.

Greek Orthodox Church 1904
πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με Χριστῷ.

Tischendorf 8th Edition
πᾶς ἰσχύω ἐν ὁ ἐνδυναμόω ἐγώ

Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με Χριστῷ.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
πάντα ἰσχύω ἐν τῷ ἐνδυναμοῦντί με Χριστῷ

Four of them have “Christ”, and four of them have “the [one]”.

And the following English translation was made 30 years BEFORE the KJV was produced:

Douay-Rheims Bible
I can do all these things in him who strengtheneth me.

And some of the newer English translations have “through Christ”, like the KJV does.

So you can't go with your normal slam that the antichrist has gotten to the “newer scribes” or whatever.  Because OLDER Bibles have “him”, and some NEWER Bibles have “Christ”.

It is a matter of how you believe “Christ” came to be in some of those mss.  Once again, the HARDER and OLDER reading is preferred, because it's easy to see a later scribe changing it to “Christ”, to be more specific.  On the other hand, it's HARD to see why a scribe would read the name “Christ”, and then change it to “the one”.

Which brings me to a good point:  How do you guys know for sure that Christ is the one Paul was talking about?  He had just mentioned “the God of peace” in 4:9, and spoke about “the Lord” in 4:10.  So how do you know Paul wasn't saying he could do all things through THE ONE who strengthens him – meaning GOD instead of CHRIST?

At any rate, this is another one of the “toss ups”.  I can't definitively fault the KJV for having “Christ” – although I strongly believe it was a later ADDITION by a scribe.

And you can't definitively fault any of the translations that have “the one who strengthens me”, or “who strengthens me”.

You'll have to try again.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (journey42 @ Feb. 11 2014,21:37)

NIV 1984 1 Timothy 2:12   I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. NIV 2011 1 Timothy 2:12    I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. Is Assume the same as “having authority”? I don't think so.

journey,

The 1984 NIV has:

1 Timothy 2:12 NIV ©
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

It was identical to the KJV.  But let's see why they changed it in their 2011 revision.

NET Bible has:

1 Timothy 2:12 NET ©
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet.

And their footnote says:

According to BDAG 150, this Greek verb means “to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to”.

See? “Assume authority” is just a shorter way of saying “assume a stance of authority”.

Anyway, one of the meanings of the word “assume” is “to take upon oneself”. For example, if I “assume control” of the company, then I have TAKEN control of it, and therefore HAVE control of it.

So the teaching is that a woman is not supposed to “assume a stance of authority over a man”.

Either translation is fine.

Try again.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (journey42 @ Feb. 11 2014,21:44)

God inspired the scriptures, and he also inspired the translation, so his Word would go out PRESERVED, unchanged, and exactly as he intended it.

Yet we can see that even the older Greek COPIES are not exactly like the mss they were copied from.  We have evidence of scribal ADDITIONS and ALTERATIONS.

There is nothing that says God inspired any one particular TRANSLATION of His written word.

Like I keep saying:  If you want to get as close to the TRUTH of God's written word as you can, then you DON'T go looking for the oldest English TRANSLATION – you go looking for the oldest Hebrew and Greek MANUSCRIPTS.

Quote (journey42 @ Feb. 11 2014,21:44)

…..we were warned not to feed on strange flesh

Right.  Best to go as far back into the past, and get as close to the OLDEST Hebrew and Greek mss as we can.  The flesh becomes more strange as it goes through the scribal alterations.  Unfortunately, the KJV was translated from some very RECENT mss, and not from the OLDEST and BEST ones.  They have incorporated some of those later scribal ALTERATIONS into their translation.

Quote (journey42 @ Feb. 11 2014,21:44)

DON'T ASK ME ABOUT TRANSLATING

That's a cop-out, journey.  If the Greek ms has the name “Jesus”, should that name “Jesus” end up in the TRANSLATION of that Greek ms?  YES or NO?

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 12 2014,08:14)

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 12 2014,08:12) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 10 2014,05:09) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 09 2014,22:18) Quote (kerwin @ Sep. 03 2013,00:07) It is written: Matthew 4:4 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Some believe: Matthew 4:4 An interpretation of the Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV) 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by the preexistent Christ. Is it truth or tradition? Why? To all, This is the real topic of this thread and other topics are addressed other places.  If your conversation changes so it no longer is linked to this topic could you please take it to a more appropriate thread.  Thank you. k you could have done this months ago but did not why now T, I do not know.

T,

I can speculate that I was hoping to see a related conversation as wakeup believes that the literal utterance of God was God himself and then became something else before it became a human being. I was disappointed.

[journey42]

mikeboll64,Feb. wrote:

[/quote]

Quote

You two are funny for me.   You sit here DEFENDING the translation that took GOD'S name out of the Bible over 6500 times, but then bitch about the name of God's SERVANT being omitted just once!

That alone is a very suspicious statement Mike.
Not only did I tell you that the NIV was not a perfect version,
but I gave you an example of why I didn't like it.  Sorry if this offends you.

Quote

Which NAME is more important?  The God who created you?  Or His humble SERVANT Jesus Christ?

God is in charge of course, but why would you want me to not acknowledge or say something to the effect that Christ had nothing to do with it?
Are you anti-christ?  Christ is my Lord, he was sent to be Lord over me.  Not just me but you too.
Sorry if this offends you.

Quote

You guys are too blind to even see that the REASON the NAME of Jehovah is omitted is because these translators want people to think of only one name when thinking of God Almighty.  And the name they want people to think about is “Jesus Christ”.

Matthew 17:5   While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Quote

In fact, the majority of Christians don't even know God has a name of His own.  If you ask them the proper NAME of God, they'll tell you “Jesus”.

The majority of Christians call God “Father”, but a small sect call him Jehovah only.

Quote

Satan has surely had his hand in all of this.  Thank God for the JWs, and for all the others who chose to leave the divine proper name of God in the scriptures, instead of omitting it.

Your true colors are showing now.  Why don't you join them, seeing you think they are the enlightened ones.  Have you questioned their doctrine, or do you just accept that also?

Quote

I was also cracking up to hear you guys saying, “through him – could be anybody”, and “They are out to get Christ Jesus out of the bible”.

Where did we say that?
Do you mean this;

“J42.

Through him; him could be anybody.
Could be him the false prophet.

wakeup.”

Quote

Why can't you use that same argument for the name of the God who created you?  Because “the Lord” could also be anybody, since the scriptures are FULL OF various different lords.  And why doesn't Wakeup say those same words about the “scribes and Pharisees” who worked so hard to get JEHOVAH out of the Bible?

Ask him.

Quote

The bottom line is that however many times the Hebrew WRITERS of the scriptures wrote God's divine name, that's how many times that NAME should also be in the English translations.

What manuscripts, whose manuscripts?  I asked you this before?  Did God have nothing to do with the translations?  Did he set us up for a fall?

Quote

If the Greek text SAYS “Jesus”, then TRANSLATE AS “Jesus”. If the Hebrew text SAYS “YHWH”, then TRANSLATE AS “YHWH” (“Jehovah”, “Yahweh”, etc.)

Why not just keep it as “YHWH” to save all confusion?
Because the way God wants it read, is the way he delivered it to us.  He has control over preserving his Word for US, so that we can seek him and trust everything he says.  
We know our scriptures, and we've seen the differences.
Stay comfy in your nest.  I'm not trying to kick you out, but if you ask me, all this is a distraction and no matter how much you try to rattle me with your worldly wisdom, I can say from a spiritual point of view, that it will hinder your spirit from growing fast.

John 10:27   My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

[terraricca]

k

Quote

T, I can speculate that I was hoping to see a related conversation as wakeup believes that the literal utterance of God was God himself and then became something else before it became a human being. I was disappointed.

tell me what make you so much against the scriptures that says that Christ was THE SON OF GOD ,AND THAT HE WAS THE FIRST OF ALL CREATION (COL;1;15-21)

[mikeboll64]

Hi journey,

I copied your last post on this thread to our private thread, so we don't have to keep messing with Kerwin's thread.

(Sorry Ker-dog)

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 13 2014,22:10)

k Quote T, I can speculate that I was hoping to see a related conversation as wakeup believes that the literal utterance of God was God himself and then became something else before it became a human being.  I was disappointed. tell me what make you so much against the scriptures that says that Christ was THE SON OF GOD ,AND THAT HE WAS THE FIRST OF ALL CREATION (COL;1;15-21)

T,

I object to your perception of Scriptures not to Scriptures. I don't agree with wakeup's perception but this thread is a good place to discus it. The choice of some to worship the AV version of the KJV can be discussed on other threads.

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 14 2014,09:01)

Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 13 2014,22:10) k Quote T, I can speculate that I was hoping to see a related conversation as wakeup believes that the literal utterance of God was God himself and then became something else before it became a human being.  I was disappointed. tell me what make you so much against the scriptures that says that Christ was THE SON OF GOD ,AND THAT HE WAS THE FIRST OF ALL CREATION (COL;1;15-21) T, I object to your perception of Scriptures not to Scriptures.  I don't agree with wakeup's perception but this thread is a good place to discus it.  The choice of some to worship the AV version of the KJV can be discussed on other threads.

K
Tell which part I have wrong ,but do it with scriptures

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 14 2014,10:03)

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 14 2014,09:01) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 13 2014,22:10) k Quote T, I can speculate that I was hoping to see a related conversation as wakeup believes that the literal utterance of God was God himself and then became something else before it became a human being.  I was disappointed. tell me what make you so much against the scriptures that says that Christ was THE SON OF GOD ,AND THAT HE WAS THE FIRST OF ALL CREATION (COL;1;15-21) T, I object to your perception of Scriptures not to Scriptures.  I don't agree with wakeup's perception but this thread is a good place to discus it.  The choice of some to worship the AV version of the KJV can be discussed on other threads. K Tell which part I have wrong ,but do it with scriptures

T,

Since you choose not to believe Scriptures then why would you believe me.

I have spoken in the past and in other places and you have not believed my arguments and I have none to add to them as yet,

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 14 2014,22:40)

Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 14 2014,10:03) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 14 2014,09:01) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 13 2014,22:10) k Quote T, I can speculate that I was hoping to see a related conversation as wakeup believes that the literal utterance of God was God himself and then became something else before it became a human being.  I was disappointed. tell me what make you so much against the scriptures that says that Christ was THE SON OF GOD ,AND THAT HE WAS THE FIRST OF ALL CREATION (COL;1;15-21) T, I object to your perception of Scriptures not to Scriptures.  I don't agree with wakeup's perception but this thread is a good place to discus it.  The choice of some to worship the AV version of the KJV can be discussed on other threads. K Tell which part I have wrong ,but do it with scriptures T, Since you choose not to believe Scriptures then why would you believe me.   I have spoken in the past and in other places and you have not believed my arguments and I have none to add to them as yet,

K

i ALWAYS BELIEVE SCRIPTURES ,BUT WITHOUT OF ADDED OPINION ,

SO DO NO SAY THAT I REJECT SCRIPTURES ,

SO SHOW ME IF YOU CAN ,BUT NO OPINION ,

[Wakeup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 13 2014,13:10)

Quote (journey42 @ Feb. 11 2014,21:44) God inspired the scriptures, and he also inspired the translation, so his Word would go out PRESERVED, unchanged, and exactly as he intended it. Yet we can see that even the older Greek COPIES are not exactly like the mss they were copied from.  We have evidence of scribal ADDITIONS and ALTERATIONS. There is nothing that says God inspired any one particular TRANSLATION of His written word. Like I keep saying:  If you want to get as close to the TRUTH of God's written word as you can, then you DON'T go looking for the oldest English TRANSLATION – you go looking for the oldest Hebrew and Greek MANUSCRIPTS. Quote (journey42 @ Feb. 11 2014,21:44) …..we were warned not to feed on strange flesh Right.  Best to go as far back into the past, and get as close to the OLDEST Hebrew and Greek mss as we can.  The flesh becomes more strange as it goes through the scribal alterations.  Unfortunately, the KJV was translated from some very RECENT mss, and not from the OLDEST and BEST ones.  They have incorporated some of those later scribal ALTERATIONS into their translation. Quote (journey42 @ Feb. 11 2014,21:44) DON'T ASK ME ABOUT TRANSLATING That's a cop-out, journey.  If the Greek ms has the name “Jesus”, should that name “Jesus” end up in the TRANSLATION of that Greek ms?  YES or NO?

Mike B.

The fact here is that you believe that God
DONT have the power to preserve His Word.

Believing in God ;but denying His power.

2 Timothy 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

wakeup.

[Author]

Posts