- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 02 2012,03:27) Quote (journey42 @ Aug. 30 2012,21:04) I can give you my evidence supporting the KJV, and you can give me yours and we can continue this discussion for another 500 pages, when the answer is not in books written about the bible, but in the bible itself.
Which Bible is the answer in, journey? The KJV? The NIV? NRSV? NASB? NWT?Let me give you an example:
John 1:18
NET ©
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.NIV ©
No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.NASB ©
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.NLT ©
No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart; he has told us about him.MSG ©
No one has ever seen God, not so much as a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God-Expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day.BBE ©
No man has seen God at any time; the only Son, who is on the breast of the Father, he has made clear what God is.NRSV ©
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known.KJV ©
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].NWT
No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.Which Bible has the correct translation of John 1:18? And how do we know?
For you it seems easy, because you consider the KJV as some “magical, never-wrong” translation. To me, that seems like a simplistic fairy tale approach to take, and so I must delve deeper into the Greek mss and lexicons in an attempt to decipher which translation comes closer to the “original” Greek words that were written.
Bottom line: The answer is not always in one particular English translation of the Hebrew and Greek words – because a translation is simply one man's (or a group of men's) best guess how certain words in one language can be properly conveyed in a different language. There are many things to be considered, ie: the Spanish phrase “de nada” is commonly translated into English as “you're welcome”. But the words actually carry a meaning of “it was nothing”. So, do we translate it as “it was nothing”, or as “you're welcome”? THAT, my friend, is up the the MAN doing the translating.
Hi Mike, the only begotten son– there is no such thing as a begotten god!John 1:18 θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 02 2012,04:00) Quote (Devolution @ Aug. 31 2012,23:54) I can just quote some professor rebutting your professors as i already have!!
Devo,Do you have reason to believe the Comma was in the AD 157 version of the Vaudois Bibles? These Bibles ranged from 157 to 1400, right? So it would be easy (albeit shady) for someone who knew the words were in the 1400 version to claim “The words were in the Vaudois Bibles, which range all the way back to 157” – without actually claiming those words were in the 157 version.
There is no need to play “dueling professors” here. The FACTS of the matter are as follows:
1. We have uncovered over 3000 Greek mss of the NT – and those words are in only 9 of them (4 of which have the words in a marginal note, and not in the actual text).
2. There are only about 20 of those 3000 mss which are Alexandrian, which means thousands of “Antioch” mss don't include those words.
3. The EARLIEST ms in which those words appear in the text is from the 14th century.
4. With the exception of the NWT, the more recent English Bibles were produced by TRINITARIANS, who would love nothing more than to display those words proudly in their translations – but they don't. Don't you think these experts and scholars have looked into the Vaudois Bible claims, and all the other vague claims your source listed? Don't you think that if there was ANY way they could have those words in their translations, they would?
Devo, you are bucking against the known facts on this issue, simply because of your wish for the KJV to be some magical, never-wrong translation of God's word. But the KJV is simply one of hundreds of English translations made, and it has its flaws just like all the rest.
Mike,we have 3000 GREEK manuscripts today, i don't think that was the case in 157- 200 AD do you?
Not only that, we have thousands of Latin mss, some proved to be penned in the 4th century also, of which even your team agrees.
So we do not LITERALLY have only 9 instances of 1 John 5:7 but many.So my question is this…how can one refer to something that isn't supposed to be there yet?
Quote Devo, you are bucking against the known facts on this issue, simply because of your wish for the KJV to be some magical, never-wrong translation of God's word. Wouldn't ignoring all the other instances of 1 John 5:7 recorded throughout history in other languages, not just Greek, actually be bucking against the facts?
Quote But the KJV is simply one of hundreds of English translations made, and it has its flaws just like all the rest. Thank you Mike.
A straight out heart felt admission that God did not preserve His word , all we have are flawed translations to go by!
So there is no authority on any one word, just a selection of maybes!
Hmmm.
So you see, this is not just about the KJV, but about God being able to preserve His word flawlessly in any book!!
Here is my point and reason for posting this post all along.So why do you debate so often on word translations and meanings in so many of your replies on so many subjects if all we have are flawed translations?
Think about it.Nevertheless,
Quote I am anxious to get to your list. Are you ready to move on to the first scripture in your list? After all, this thread is not just about 1 John 5:7, but about the authenticity, as a whole, of the KJV, right? AV (King James) Mt 9:13 for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
New International For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
New American Standard For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
New World Translation For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.So Mike, go for it, show me why the KJV is wrong and the others are right in this example.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 02 2012,02:59) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,17:50) See Mike, The evidence is clear that 1John 5:7 was added early on – as I have suggested.
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.org
Agreed Ed.
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 02 2012,13:47) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 02 2012,02:59) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,17:50) See Mike, The evidence is clear that 1John 5:7 was added early on – as I have suggested.
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.org
Agreed Ed.
EDJQuote as I have suggested. was it the info you had or was it a revelation,
if it was an info you came across and share it ,this is a credit to you ,
other wise I haven a clue
Quote (Devolution @ Sep. 01 2012,13:46) Wouldn't ignoring all the other instances of 1 John 5:7 recorded throughout history in other languages, not just Greek, actually be bucking against the facts?
The more recent English translations are produced by hardcore Trinitarians, who twist the scriptures with a Trinitarian slant every chance they get. For example, the NIV was produced by over 100 scholars who had to sign off on being a Trinitarian before they were even allowed on the project. These Biblical scholars have most likely forgotten more details about the Johannine Comma than you and I will ever know in the first place, Devo.I seriously doubt that all these Trinitarians would leave those words out of their translations if there was even a million to one chance it belonged there. Trinitarians have for centuries claimed that those words prove a Triune Godhead. Why on earth would they then leave those words out if there was even a SLIGHT chance that they belonged there?
Quote (Devolution @ Sep. 01 2012,13:46) Thank you Mike.
A straight out heart felt admission that God did not preserve His word , all we have are flawed translations to go by!
It's preserved Devo. Just not all in one specific translation. We must be like the Bereans and research the scriptures to see if the things we are told align with them. John 1:1 is a great example. Are we really to believe that God Most High was WITH God Most High in the beginning – like virtually every English translation tells us? Or should we do a little research to find out what's wrong with that picture?Quote (Devolution @ Sep. 01 2012,13:46) So why do you debate so often on word translations and meanings in so many of your replies on so many subjects if all we have are flawed translations?
Because one translation might have this verse rendered correctly, while another translation might have that verse rendered correctly. There is no one translation that has it right 100% of the time. We must be diligent.Quote (Devolution @ Sep. 01 2012,13:46) AV (King James) Mt 9:13 for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
New International For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
New American Standard For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
New World Translation For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.At first glance, it seems to me that the words “to repentance” were at some time a marginal note that was added in by a scribe. I would assume that the older and better mss do not have those words, and knowing that they were added in at a later time, three of the four listed versions left those words out of their translations.
This is my GUESS, without even looking into it. Shall we do some research to see if my guess is correct?
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,13:43) Hi Mike, the only begotten son– there is no such thing as a begotten god! John 1:18 θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.
Well, Deborah and other prophets were called gods in scripture. Were they begotten?This is another scripture up for debate, Ed. But unlike 1 John 5:7, there is good evidence, internally and externally, for both sides of this one.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 02 2012,11:00) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,13:43) Hi Mike, the only begotten son– there is no such thing as a begotten god! John 1:18 θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε ο μονογενης υιος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.
Well, Deborah and other prophets were called gods in scripture. Were they begotten?This is another scripture up for debate, Ed. But unlike 1 John 5:7, there is good evidence, internally and externally, for both sides of this one.
Hi Mike, There is no such thing as a begotten god.What did God mean by the term “Only Begotten Son”
was something Me and Nick had previously discussed.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (terraricca @ Sep. 02 2012,10:34) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 02 2012,13:47) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 02 2012,02:59) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,17:50) See Mike, The evidence is clear that 1John 5:7 was added early on – as I have suggested.
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.org
Agreed Ed.
EDJQuote as I have suggested. was it the info you had or was it a revelation,
if it was an info you came across and share it ,this is a credit to you ,
other wise I haven a clue
Hi Pierre,Mike was saying (in essence) the I John 5:7 was added in
the 12th Century; I had suggested that it was really added early on.
Now devolution has provided the evidence that suggests that I was right.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgmikeboll64,Sep. wrote:[/quote]
Mike,Quote At first glance, it seems to me that the words “to repentance” were at some time a marginal note that was added in by a scribe. I would assume that the older and better mss do not have those words, and knowing that they were added in at a later time, three of the four listed versions left those words out of their translations. “Older & better mss?
We shall test them together through the spirit and see then ok.Quote This is my GUESS, without even looking into it. Shall we do some research to see if my guess is correct? No Mike, it is the message we are discerning, look at it again, this time with your spiritual eyes.
I want YOU to tell me with YOUR OWN understanding, no other sources of reference, no outside help, just YOUR understanding alone, just like i will be doing, you, me, the bible, and our own understanding alone.
We should not need help understanding such basic matters.So i will try again,
Mike, WHY do you believe there is nothing wrong with the message within the scriptures below compared to the KJV?AV (King James) Mt 9:13 for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
New International For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
New American Standard For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
New World Translation For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.Cheers.
Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased, and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power did great wonders and miracles among the people.
Acts 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, did, which is called the synagogue of the Libertenes, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
Acts 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.Acts 6:11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speaking blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.
Acts 6:12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,
Acts 6:13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law.The synagogue of the Libertines were Jews from various places, including Alexandria, Egypt and they produced false witnesses.
It appears to me that this continued on even well after these days.There was a man from Alexandria however, who was mighty in the scriptures
Acts 18:24 And a certain jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquen man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus.
Acts 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord, and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
Acts 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquilla and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 02 2012,19:38) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 02 2012,10:34) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 02 2012,13:47) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 02 2012,02:59) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,17:50) See Mike, The evidence is clear that 1John 5:7 was added early on – as I have suggested.
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
holycitybiblecode.org
Agreed Ed.
EDJQuote as I have suggested. was it the info you had or was it a revelation,
if it was an info you came across and share it ,this is a credit to you ,
other wise I haven a clue
Hi Pierre,Mike was saying (in essence) the I John 5:7 was added in
the 12th Century; I had suggested that it was really added early on.
Now devolution has provided the evidence that suggests that I was right.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
edjso it was an accident that you were right out of the blue because you had no clue of it right
devo
New International For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
in this version ,that scripture omits the word “repentance”” but tell me what LOST is it does not scriptures say this many times over in other places
yes it does ,then how can your understanding be changed unless you are not looking for truth but for other things.
Quote (journey42 @ Sep. 02 2012,08:22) There was a man from Alexandria however, who was mighty in the scriptures.
It seems then, that we can't just rule mss from Egypt out just because they're from Egypt. It seems that godly people CAN come from Egypt after all.Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,19:35) What did God mean by the term “Only Begotten Son”
was something Me and Nick had previously discussed.
Wrong thread, Ed.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 03 2012,01:48) Quote (journey42 @ Sep. 02 2012,08:22) There was a man from Alexandria however, who was mighty in the scriptures.
It seems then, that we can't just rule mss from Egypt out just because they're from Egypt. It seems that godly people CAN come from Egypt after all.
Yes and he had to be taught more perfectly.You know what's uncanny about all this,
my grandparents are from Alexandria!
Born there, lived there, married there, had children there.Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,19:38) Mike was saying (in essence) the I John 5:7 was added in
the 12th Century; I had suggested that it was really added early on.
Now devolution has provided the evidence that suggests that I was right.
The info I posted says the extra words have not been found in the text of any Greek ms until #629 from the 14th century.The info says the words are written as a marginal note in an 11th century mss (Codex 221, I believe), but that they were not written there in the 11th century. They were added in the margin by a later scribe.
I didn't write the info – only passed it on. I have no reason to doubt it simply because the info comes from those who have a Trinitarian bias – those who would dearly love to be able to include those words in their translation.
Quote (journey42 @ Sep. 02 2012,08:59) You know what's uncanny about all this,
my grandparents are from Alexandria!
Born there, lived there, married there, had children there.
But nothing good can come out of Egypt, right?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 03 2012,02:02) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 01 2012,19:38) Mike was saying (in essence) the I John 5:7 was added in
the 12th Century; I had suggested that it was really added early on.
Now devolution has provided the evidence that suggests that I was right.
The info I posted says the extra words have not been found in the text of any Greek ms until #629 from the 14th century.The info says the words are written as a marginal note in an 11th century mss (Codex 221, I believe), but that they were not written there in the 11th century. They were added in the margin by a later scribe.
I didn't write the info – only passed it on. I have no reason to doubt it simply because the info comes from those who have a Trinitarian bias – those who would dearly love to be able to include those words in their translation.
MikeSo you believe anything men tell you?
and the men who believe this were told from the men,
who were told from the men before them,
who were told from the other men before them
etc, etc …..
I personally do not think that these men set out to decieve,
but that they were decieved from the ones right at the top.
Why don't you start looking at scripture now, instead of examining the ones who examine the book?
time is ticking….Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 03 2012,02:04) Quote (journey42 @ Sep. 02 2012,08:59) You know what's uncanny about all this,
my grandparents are from Alexandria!
Born there, lived there, married there, had children there.
But nothing good can come out of Egypt, right?
Mike,But I came out of there,
and that spirit of Egypt is not in meQuote (journey42 @ Sep. 03 2012,02:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 03 2012,02:04) Quote (journey42 @ Sep. 02 2012,08:59) You know what's uncanny about all this,
my grandparents are from Alexandria!
Born there, lived there, married there, had children there.
But nothing good can come out of Egypt, right?
Mike,But I came out of there,
and that spirit of Egypt is not in me
MikeWhy do you think that God called babylon now “Sodom and Egypt”?
His people, the Hebrews were freed from Egypt along time ago,
and Christ said he came to set the captives free?
and why did Christ say that many will say in that day,
Lord did we not heal in your name, and cast out spirits in your name etc etc,
and Christ says, depart from me, I never knew you
who is he speaking to?
believers or non believers?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
