- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I believe that one of the greatest of satan's deceptions is to decieve men into believing that there in not an perfect bible translation. That God is not powerful enough to make this happen through sinful man. Yet, why is this so hard to believe, man believes in evolution. Man believes the trinity.
Think about this. When the apostles set up the churches, they all had different names. The names were the cities where the churches were established. And even though there were many different churches, they all shared the same doctrine. Nothing was added or taken away without the consent of the apostles and deciples.
Now, I am going to skip to the period when the King James bible became translated. I am doing this because from the time of the apostles to this time, most was corrupted. The only thing that stayed true was the Holy writs that managed to stay hidden from the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire, although disquise as christian, was alway the Roman Empire and it used religion to serve it's purpose and not that of God's.
The King of England was moved to endorse a translation into English and the work that was involved outstanding. The intention of the translators was that of unbiasness. The objective was duplication. Their intention was to make the translation as close to a copy or meaning as humanly possible. An interesting point is that there was about forty eight men involved with this translation and the finished product was barely different then that of Tindale, who died for translating and distributing God's word.
There were a handful of different interpretations, but it wasn't until the corrupted translations started coming onto the scene that the world became saturated with all the many diverse religions. Now, everyone says, you have your bible, I have my bible, we are both right. You have your religion, I have my religion, we are both right. God understands, he is a God of love. He knows we make mistakes. So what if it is the table of the enemy.
I believe that the falling away spoken of in Thess. is that from God's word.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
This has been an attack of the devil to confuse man. Jesus warned about not adding or taking away from this book. I believe that with every translation came a sting of religions. What better way to steal the souls of men. If you are on a road and you are trying to get to heaven, in today's world, you have the choice of at least 26 road maps that I know of. I only need one.
Hi,
Men love to ascribe perfection to something so that there is never a need to deeply test it themselves. They can quote willy nilly from it and never check a verse. They can use the confusion of language and phrasing of the KJV to befuddle and control their flock.
Was the KJV the oldest translation?
Was the KJV drawn from all the manuscripts?
Or were certain more common manuscripts used from one or two sources?
Can manuscript choice itself introduce bias?
Are the oldest or the more common manuscripts the best?
Have more recently found manuscripts no place in the bible?I too was once trapped into believing the KJV was the only reliable bible having read and absorbed a most influential book that decried all the others. It was almost paranoid in it's demand that all other versions were of Satan. But then I found the added verse in 1 Jn 5.5-7 and other faults that showed me that it too was not THE ROCK and the Spirit woul;d delineate the truth from them all.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 08 2006,03:33) Hi,
Men love to ascribe perfection to something so that there is never a need to deeply test it themselves. They can quote willy nilly from it and never check a verse. They can use the confusion of language and phrasing of the KJV to befuddle and control their flock.
Was the KJV the oldest translation?
Was the KJV drawn from all the manuscripts?
Or were certain more common manuscripts used from one or two sources?
Can manuscript choice itself introduce bias?
Are the oldest or the more common manuscripts the best?
Have more recently found manuscripts no place in the bible?I too was once trapped into believing the KJV was the only reliable bible having read and absorbed a most influential book that decried all the others. It was almost paranoid in it's demand that all other versions were of Satan. But then I found the added verse in 1 Jn 5.5-7 and other faults that showed me that it too was not THE ROCK and the Spirit woul;d delineate the truth from them all.
Why would God allow man to be decieved when he is seeking the truth and has the Holy Spirit? It is the Spirit that guides us to ALL truth NOT mans writings.I agree with hewillcomeintheclouds that what this word and that word means will just take your time and will mean nothing as IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT GUIDES US TO ALL TRUTH that is scripture. The JWs know all the definitions of every word in the bible and they still don't have the truth.
Here what the Spirit says. What does this scripture mean?
Rev 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches…
Quote (kenrch @ June 08 2006,04:13) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 08 2006,03:33) Hi,
Men love to ascribe perfection to something so that there is never a need to deeply test it themselves. They can quote willy nilly from it and never check a verse. They can use the confusion of language and phrasing of the KJV to befuddle and control their flock.
Was the KJV the oldest translation?
Was the KJV drawn from all the manuscripts?
Or were certain more common manuscripts used from one or two sources?
Can manuscript choice itself introduce bias?
Are the oldest or the more common manuscripts the best?
Have more recently found manuscripts no place in the bible?I too was once trapped into believing the KJV was the only reliable bible having read and absorbed a most influential book that decried all the others. It was almost paranoid in it's demand that all other versions were of Satan. But then I found the added verse in 1 Jn 5.5-7 and other faults that showed me that it too was not THE ROCK and the Spirit woul;d delineate the truth from them all.
Why would God allow man to be decieved when he is seeking the truth and has the Holy Spirit? It is the Spirit that guides us to ALL truth NOT mans writings.I agree with hewillcomeintheclouds that what this word and that word means will just take your time and will mean nothing as IT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT GUIDES US TO ALL TRUTH that is scripture. The JWs know all the definitions of every word in the bible and they still don't have the truth.
Here what the Spirit says. What does this scripture mean?
Rev 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches…
oops! that's heiscomingintheclouds. Sorry
Hi k,
Now we are confused.
Men can get a denominational or religious spirit or a spirit of divination such that the woman who annoyed Paul had, and think they have the Holy Spirit. So you do need the Word too.
But just the KJV?
naahHi,
Some of the deadest of the dead churches I have come across use only KJV. They have tended to be harshly legalistic and knowledge based depending only on the intellect of men and averse to any expression of the work of the Spirit of God.
Tending to Phariseeism they have been smug in their knowledge and judgemental of others. Of course my experiences are only mine and others may show me they have seen great life too among KJV users.The God I know says
“mercy triumphs over judgement”Hello all:
I use the KJV or NKJV most of the time out of preference for varying reasons:
I learned verses in that version and can find my way through it quicker,
I like the language “the LORD is my Shepherd, I shall not want” or “Our Father which art in Heaven” flows nicer to me than some other versions,
It is easier to get it in large or small print: NIV requires that I use glasses (these days) and it makes it therefore not quite as accessible.
I think it helps in reaching a wider audience who would otherwise close their ears and accuse me of using another translation as they do the JWs. It's been easier to reject JWs (right or wrong) because of this and I am sure sometimes they can't even get past the doorway to present their case for that reason.I am fascinated by its literary construction, the poetry and ability to say what it needs to say in the way that it does. I admire the effort that the translators put into it as workers doing a work to please their Master.
Having said all that, I like translations like NIV, Good News, etc because they are accessible to greater populations who find the KJV daunting. People must not have to struggle with language barriers to get to the word of God.
I read either but tend to memorize using the KJV.
The KJV is not a perfect translation, given some of my own experiences. A quick example is Malachi 3:1 where it says that “the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple…,” We know that Jesus, the son of God came to the 2nd Temple, that it was not the Father who came. We know that the second temple is considered the temple of GOD as Jesus drove the merchants out of his Father's house. Thus, the Lord (Jesus) came to YHWH's temple.
Agree that the translations are too many, and this can be confusing to new believers but thanks be to God who would not suffer any who love him to be lost or ashamed.
Hi,
Thanks cubes,
It is the verses such as Phil 2.5-7 for example that bear no semblance to modern speech and are so clumbsy that they are used to justify all kinds of false doctrine that shows we should not rely just on one version.
NIV also does not always play by the rules and inserts “Jesus” in Jn 12.41 and “Men” in Rev 11 about the two witnesses, that introduces serious doubt as to the translators grasp on the need for absolute veracity.Nick,
There were older translations such as the Geneva, and the Great Bible, by a few years. The reason for the KJ translation is because of the biasness included within earlier bibles. Instead of letting the individual reader be inspired by the unction of the Holy Spirit, the bibles were filled with the bias interpretations of men. It is for this reason King James gave the order for the translation. He was influenced by many, but I believe it was God himself, through the Holy Spirit, that moved the King's heart to act in this matter. If you would only go back and read the many writtings of the King himself. He was a very strong believer. You can feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in much of his writtings. The most amazing conclusion to the entire story is the finished product was all most indentical to that written by Tindale, the man God chose to translate his word in English. This man was martyred for the faith. I believe if ever another time our Lord Jesus stood at the right side of the Father to recieve a saint since the saint Steven, it was to recieve Tindale.
Was the KJV drawn from all the manuscripts?
Are you trying to insult my intelligence. The NT in the KJ had over 5,000 handwritten manuscripts alone, which contain all or part of the New Testament. If the majority of manuscripts said that verse was there, then it was written in the majority text.
Have more recently found manuscripts no place in the bible?
Do you mean that of Judas and Mary Maglalene? I hope you are kidding?
Hi H,
It is important that all the readers of this forum understand how manuscripts are chosen and you have helped elucidate that by your explanation about “the majority text”
Can you elaborate further about this choice and where those documents came from?
No I do not mean the spurious “scriptures”Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 09 2006,03:29) Hi,
Thanks cubes,
It is the verses such as Phil 2.5-7 for example that bear no semblance to modern speech and are so clumbsy that they are used to justify all kinds of false doctrine that shows we should not rely just on one version.
NIV also does not always play by the rules and inserts “Jesus” in Jn 12.41 and “Men” in Rev 11 about the two witnesses, that introduces serious doubt as to the translators grasp on the need for absolute veracity.
Hi Nick,I believe that the translators did a great service but the work is ongoing, and now with the many readers of the scriptures challenging and pressing in for the truth, it would help with the work towards many translations.
It's good to have more than one versions I find. When I read the minor prophets, I rely much on the NIV.
What I can do is post the partial study done by our church by link to the page. The study is only in part and it is only what refers to in part, the King James study. We believe that all saints need to do the study for themselves, so they can see with their own eyes. The path of the church throughout history is very difficult to follow and if not for the hand written Holy Writs, it would be difficult to discern between the church and the pagan religions. For the church was always under persecution and under attack, either physically or spiritually or both. When Rome decided it would be the keeper of the faith, it was not with good intentions and the saints again began being persecuted.
Anyway, here is a link to our page. http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=244&ItemId=732
Kenrch,
Quote The JWs know all the definitions of every word in the bible and they still don't have the truth.
If we don't “have” the truth, at least we know what it is then, based on what you said. We have all the definitions of every word. “Truth” is in the Bible. So we know what truth is. (I know this isn't really on topic, but it made me smile, so I had to say something.)These are five things I’ve come across with regards to the KJV. Don’t get me wrong. It’s one of my favorites. It’s old and popular and has a certain feel to it. But there are certain things I have to mention only because it's been repeatedly stated that the KJV is infallible:
1. Many thousands of ancient written secular documents have been found in recent years. And these documents give a better understanding of the original languages— Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek—in which the Bible was written. Not so long ago it was thought that many words in the Greek Scriptures were special Bible words, so to speak. But now these same words have been found in ordinary correspondence of Bible times—in deeds, official documents, and even in receipts. Seeing how these words were used in secular documents of the time has been helpful understanding their meaning.
For example: Ancient papyrus writings have been found that showed the everyday use of certain words not well understood. Thus “Raca” was simply thought to mean “a vain fellow,” but that did not fit in with the severe condemnation of its use by Jesus. (Matt. 5:22, AV margin) Now, however, because of the discovery of a papyrus letter, scholar E. Goodspeed has said that “Raca” was a foul name “which one sometimes heard on the lips of foul-mouthed people but never saw in print.”2. More and more ancient Bible manuscripts have been discovered. The significance of these finds is not that they are radically different from manuscripts already possessed, indicating need for basic changes in the Bible text. To the contrary, their differences are minor. Yet, if you are a Shakespeare enthusiast, even one word altered in Hamlet would be important to you, although it would really make no difference to the characters, the plot, or the result. Similarly, to a Bible student the change of one word can be important for the meaning of a Bible verse, yet not alter any doctrine or basic interpretation.
At the time of the translation of the King James Version only a few Greek manuscripts were available and these were of rather late origin. But since then many fine vellum manuscripts of the collected Scriptures have come to light, some going back as far as the fourth century of our Common Era. Also papyrus manuscripts and fragments have been uncovered that date back to the third and even the second centuries C.E. Usually, the older the copy, the less likely it is to have suffered changes from copying.3. The English language itself has changed over time. If it continues to change at the same rate, a person who speaks English may have great difficulty understanding anything in the KJV. Will it be infallibe when no one understands it?
For example, to “let” used to mean to “hinder.” Today the meaning usually attached to the expression is just the opposite, to “permit.” (2 Thess. 2:7)
To “prevent” used to mean to “go before” or to “precede.” Today it means to “keep from happening.” (1 Thess. 4:15) “Conversation” used to mean “conduct.” Today it most often refers to talking with another. (Phil. 1:27) And for most persons today “shambles” does not refer to a “meat market,” as it used to, but to a “scene of destruction.”—1 Cor. 10:25.
The English word “coast” in former times did not refer just to a seacoast. It used to mean the side or border of a country. Thus the King James and Catholic Douay, both first published over 360 years ago, speak of the apostle Paul as traveling through the “upper coasts” to Ephesus. (Acts 19:1) However, the Bible record shows that Paul traveled to Ephesus from the “country of Galatia and Phrygia,” a journey that would take him nowhere near a seacoast! (Acts 18:23)
Another example is that of the verb apékho, translated “have” in older translations, but which means “to have in full,” being used “as a technical expression in drawing up a receipt,” as stated in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. So Jesus, in condemning those who hypocritically make a showing of their charity, said that they “are having their reward in full.” That is absolutely all they will ever get, the praise of men, which was just what they wanted.—Matt. 6:2.
There are many many such examples. The Bible is meant to be understood, not to be sung in latin because it sounds pretty. It’s meant to be understood.
4. The removal of God’s name and substitution of titles (GOD and LORD) in most places all except 3 or 4 doesn’t make sense. If it’s ok to use God’s name, why remove it? If it’s not ok, why have it in those few places?
5. And then there are the spurious verses. They have their own threads.
david
Sorry, forgot to mention this which has also bothered me and confused others from time to time:
The King James Version rendered she’ohl´ as “hell,” “the grave,” and “the pit”; hai´des is therein rendered both “hell” and “grave”; ge´en·na is also translated “hell.”So, sometimes sheohl is “hell” and sometimes “the grave,” and sometimes the “pit.”
I believe that sheol (hell) is the grave or pit. They are the same. But when you use the word “grave,” it is a different image then when you use the word “hell.”Similar with haides: sometimes “hell,” sometimes “grave.” Perhaps hell and grave are the same.
gehenna is different. We KNOW THIS because haides is thrown into gehenna. And gehenna is sometimes translated “hell.” So, is hell being thrown into hell?
This picking and choosing how to translate the same word differently has lead to confusion.
I believe transliterating them as sheol, haides and gehenna would be less confusing.“Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.”
—The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81.Hi HiCitC:
Under the Tindale and Tunsdale part of the article you linked us to, you mentioned a citizen of a rather modern nation who assisted in the endeavor of publishing and providing bibles. I am wondering whether I have my history mixed up or if this was an oversight on behalf of the author?
Thanks
Hi HiCitC:
Under the Tindale and Tunsdale part of the article you linked us to, you mentioned a citizen of a rather modern nation (Pakistani) who assisted in the endeavor of publishing and providing bibles. I am wondering whether I have my history mixed up or if this was an oversight on behalf of the author?
Thanks
This has a big effect on me. Why do the churches that preach the Trinity continue to get blessed tremendously by God if the preaching falsly? What Church should I go to? I like the fellowship at chuch and unity of Believers in Christ. What Bible should I be reading what do you recommend. I love this website.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
