King James Vs NAB Bible

[Justice_Mercy]

David, This is from that web site you linked... classic KJV Only rhetoric:

"The Bible, with its 66 books, is the very Word of God. The Bible is verbally and plenarily inspired as originally given and it is divinely preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Received Text. The Bible is our sole authority in all matters of faith and practice. The King James Version in English is an example of an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts; we believe it can be used with confidence. We reject modern textual criticism and the modern versions that this pseudo-science has produced, such as the American Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, and the New International Version). We also reject the dynamic equivalency method of Bible translation which results in a careless version that only contains the general ideas rather than the very words of God. Examples of dynamic equivalency versions are the Today’s English Version, the Living Bible, and The Message"

as usual, they have nothing to back up this claim except unproved assertions that fly in the face of all of the discoveries and learning that have occurred over the last 400 years.

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Justice_Mercy

David, This is from that web site you linked... classic KJV Only rhetoric:

"The Bible, with its 66 books, is the very Word of God. The Bible is verbally and plenarily inspired as originally given and it is divinely preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Received Text. The Bible is our sole authority in all matters of faith and practice. The King James Version in English is an example of an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek texts; we believe it can be used with confidence. We reject modern textual criticism and the modern versions that this pseudo-science has produced, such as the American Standard Version, the New American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, and the New International Version). We also reject the dynamic equivalency method of Bible translation which results in a careless version that only contains the general ideas rather than the very words of God. Examples of dynamic equivalency versions are the Today’s English Version, the Living Bible, and The Message"

as usual, they have nothing to back up this claim except unproved assertions that fly in the face of all of the discoveries and learning that have occurred over the last 400 years.

Smells like arrogance with a touch of ignorance.

[Justice_Mercy]

heh yeah, only slightly ignorant of the real issues

I am amazed how the KJV Onlyists (and their variations) have come to worship a translation instead of the God that provided the manuscripts we translate from .

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Justice_Mercy

heh yeah, only slightly ignorant of the real issues

I am amazed how the KJV Onlyists (and their variations) have come to worship a translation instead of the God that provided the manuscripts we translate from .

I guess they have never heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the many advances Biblical scholars have learned in recent years?

[Justice_Mercy]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

I guess they have never heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the many advances Biblical scholars have learned in recent years?

You don't need any more manuscripts or modern "book learnin'" when you have the 100% reliable King James Version !!

I believe in unicorns, because it is in the KJV!!

Job 39:9-12
King James Version (KJV)

9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?

====

9 “Is the wild ox willing to serve you?
Will he spend the night at your manger?
10 Can you bind him in the furrow with ropes,
or will he harrow the valleys after you?
11 Will you depend on him because his strength is great,
and will you leave to him your labor?
12 Do you have faith in him that he will return your grain
and gather it to your threshing floor?
(ESV)

10 “Can you bind the wild ox in a furrow with [b]ropes,
Or will he harrow the valleys after you?
11 “Will you trust him because his strength is great
And leave your labor to him?
12 “Will you have faith in him that he will return your grain
And gather it from your threshing floor?
(NASB)

9“Is the wild ox willing to serve you? Will it spend the night at your crib? 10Can you tie it in the furrow with ropes, or will it harrow the valleys after you? 11Will you depend on it because its strength is great, and will you hand over your labor to it? 12Do you have faith in it that it will return, and bring your grain to your threshing floor?
(NRSV)

I guess these modern versions are stupid, because they don't believe in unicorns!!

[Justice_Mercy]

Here is another one... the modern Bibles take away the concept of God creating EVIL!!!
(just what we needed... the Gnostic idea of the true God being the evil one)

(Isaiah 45:7, KJV) - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

(Amos 3:6) - "Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"

=====

Isaiah 45:7
(NRSV)

I form light and create darkness,
I make weal and create woe;
I the Lord do all these things.

Amos 3:6
(NRSV)

Is a trumpet blown in a city,
and the people are not afraid?
Does disaster befall a city,
unless the Lord has done it?

=====

I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things.
(Isaiah 45:7 ESV)


Is a trumpet blown in a city,
and the people are not afraid?
Does disaster come to a city,
unless the LORD has done it?
(Amos 3:6 ESV)


The list of errors in translation in the KJV goes on and on... it is a product of its time, the best they could do with the understanding the translators had... thankfully we have better insight into the text of scripture in the 21st century because of the things that the KJV translators lacked.

[david ruiz]

Originally Posted by Justice_Mercy

heh yeah, only slightly ignorant of the real issues

I am amazed how the KJV Onlyists (and their variations) have come to worship a translation instead of the God that provided the manuscripts we translate from .

Yes ,man can seem to worship, defend. put on a pedestal above others, things they think are "it", "the one true...", in a way "perfect', infallible....beyond contesting.

[david ruiz]

http://www.baptisttranslators.com/content/view/51/50/ Still searching folks. Here is probably another biased article ,but the question is still out there ( FROM THREAD # 58 ) if these newer translations use the Sinai/Vat. plus maybe 50 other newer manuscripts to decide on the 3% variants ? Do the 5000 manuscripts support the newer or older versions in regards to these variants ? How many manuscripts support a unicorn or God making "evil" vs an ox /calamity ? Do all manuscripts have same Greek words and we just interpret differently (ox-unicorn, evil-calamity) or are there indeed different Greek words in different manuscripts in the two variants I just mentioned ? Thanks for your patience.

[Justice_Mercy]

Originally Posted by david ruiz

http://www.baptisttranslators.com/content/view/51/50/ Still searching folks. Here is probably another biased article ,but the question is still out there ( FROM THREAD # 58 ) if these newer translations use the Sinai/Vat. plus maybe 50 other newer manuscripts to decide on the 3% variants ? Do the 5000 manuscripts support the newer or older versions in regards to these variants ? How many manuscripts support a unicorn or God making "evil" vs an ox /calamity ? Do all manuscripts have same Greek words and we just interpret differently (ox-unicorn, evil-calamity) or are there indeed different Greek words in different manuscripts in the two variants I just mentioned ? Thanks for your patience.

No manuscript has a greek word for unicorn. Saying God creating evil is not an issue with the manuscripts... that is translator error!

[david ruiz]

Remarks of C H Spurgeon http://members.tripod.com/~quick_gee...h/textual.html

"For that Revised Version I have but little care as a general rule, holding it to be by no means an improvement upon our common Authorised Version. It is a useful thing to have it for private reference, but I trust it will never be regarded as the standard English translation of the New Testament. The Revised Version of the Old Testament is so excellent, that I am half afraid it may carry the Revised New Testament upon its shoulders into general use. I sincererly hope that this may not be the case, for the result would be a decided loss." Sermon on John 10:14,15, Treasury of the Bible, page 432, Volume 2, New Testament, Zondervan, 1968.

"Never did a translation of the New Testament fail more completely than this Revised Version has done as a book for general reading: but as an assistant to the student it deserves honourable mention, despite its faults." Sermon on 1 John 3:1, Ibid., page 519, Volume 4, New Testament.

"The first sentence is 'GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH.' I believe that our version is the correct one, but the fiercest battlings have been held over this sentence. It is asserted that the word Theos is a corruption for 'Os'; so that, instead of reading 'God was manifest in the flesh,' we should read, 'who was manifest in the flesh.' There is very little occasion for fighting about this matter, for if the text does not say 'God was manifest in the flesh,' who does it say was manifest in the flesh? Either a man, or an angel, or a devil. Does it tell us that a man was manifest in the flesh? Assuredly that cannot be its teaching, for every man is manifest in the flesh, and there is no sense whatever in making such a statement concerning any mere man, and then calling it a mystery. Was it an angel, then? But what angel was ever manifest in the flesh? And if he were, would it be at all a mystery that he should be 'seen of angels'? Is it a wonder for an angel to see an angel? Can it be that the devil was manifest in the flesh? If so, he has been 'received up into glory,' which, let us hope, is not the case. Well, if it was neither a man, nor an angel, nor a devil, who was manifest in the flesh, surely he must have been God; and so, if the word be not there, the sense must be there, or else nonsense. We believe that, if criticism should grind the text in a mill, it would get out of it no more and no less than the sense expressed by our grand old version. God himself was manifest in the flesh." Sermon on 1 Timothy 3:16, Ibid., page 788, Volume 3, New Testament....I DO LIKE SPURGEON

[Justice_Mercy]

David... believe what you want.... finding a quote from the 1800's for Spurgeon's preference is not going to make any sense in the 21st century. With all of the revisions and new information we have in translating we have Bibles that are more accurate than ever before.

Defending the superiority of the KJV versus many of the modern translations is a lost cause.

[Justice_Mercy]

P.S. the only reason I even care about this issue is because, David, every "Christian" cult and pseudo-cult I have practically ever seen is one that uses the KJV Only. It is easy to make any false doctrine you want with it, because it is not cohesively translated. I know there is some good in the KJV... it was what I learned to quote passages from... but it is also dangerous to exclude any rationality about the issue, like that site you posted above. That site is scary, because it is how those guys control your mind. I am not trying to convert you to Catholicism or anything like that.. I just remember the heartache my life became when I finally realized how the people that were supposedly my religious leaders were using the Bible completely out of context or how poor of a translation the KJV is overall. I only say this because so many people are preyed upon by these KJV-lovers. You will believe what you will believe, but even the most scholarly and most godly Protestants would tell you the same things I am!

Beware of those that will tell you that modern translations are bad... that's a bunch of conspiracy theory nonsense. With some research and patience, you will find out the ones which are held as the better modern ones versus the garbage common vernacular of the street ones.

[Oldtimer_7]

Justice_Mercy, you make some important points. The teams that worked on the KJV did not communicate, nor was there an overall editor or editorial team, so the same words are translated differently from the Greek and Hebrew. The words, too, have changed in meaning over the years, which was one of the reasons that the KJV was created: to put the words of God in easily understandable language. Another poster has pointed ou that the language was already dated when the KJV came out, but that is the problem of working in a rapidly evolving language. Watch a commercial from the 80's to see what I mean.

The additional witnesses show that there were several streams of transmission of the Bible, of which the Byzantine and the Alexandrian were the two most influential. What the additional witnesses we have show is the amazing (dare I say miraculous) accuracy of transmission across time, languages, and cultures.

[david ruiz]

Originally Posted by Justice_Mercy

No manuscript has a greek word for unicorn. Saying God creating evil is not an issue with the manuscripts... that is translator error!

Thank-you for the unicorn answer. That is quite "exact". Now , does Amos use the greek word for ,disaster ,or calamity or evil ? The only way i can know it is translating error is if the greek word is for calamity and it was translated evil ,or if the greek word was for disaster and it was translated evil. So I am thinking unicorn might be wrong ,and Spurgeon liked the revised text of the old testament,so i am willing to look at anything on a one by one basis,hence the question on Amos.

[david ruiz]

Originally Posted by Justice_Mercy

P.S. the only reason I even care about this issue is because, David, every "Christian" cult and pseudo-cult I have practically ever seen is one that uses the KJV Only.

So what cults other than KJV onlyists ? Using White's arguments against "guilt by association ",and that folks have used probably all versions fro their heresy etc.This doesn't work when used by KJV only folks ,nor should it work with those advocating other versions.

(KJV) it is not cohesively translated.

Well cohesive enough to agree with most texts 97% .Is this based upon what the video had on a greek word rendered differently by two committees-though meaning the same thing ? OK, take it one at a time and perhaps another version might have that one right (but no others wrong?) Most things I have read from detractors still say the KJV will not lead to ANY theological errors, as noted in the Combs article.

but it is also dangerous to exclude any rationality about the issue, like that site you posted above.

Yes, except that you sound like the antithesis of KJV only folk. I would not say the article I sited was devoid of "any rationality". It has some rationality, indeed it may even have flaws, but I would not say devoid of ALL logic (that is extreme as "onlyists"). You will also note I don't think they criticize all versions (not sure they criticized the one you like)(

That site is scary, because it is how those guys control your mind

Well, I would hope we are not controlled by a "version", nor by what ?.

I just remember the heartache my life became when I finally realized how the people that were supposedly my religious leaders were using the Bible completely out of context or how poor of a translation the KJV is overall.

Wow, sounds like scapegoating. I believe my testimony may also have the weaknesses of church things around me, but the bottom responsibility, error, was in my own heart condition, for indeed "no man seeks after God". But I understand and am sorry you feel it is due in part to the KJV .Again ,that people take it out of context is guilt by association, and can be and has been done with all versions.

I only say this because so many people are preyed upon by these KJV-lovers

Not sure what you mean, unless you mean they just don't like other translations and push for all to have a KJB. Yeah that could be wrong, but worse things have happened in church history, when it comes to bible translating (or not translating,etc etc etc) .

You will believe what you will believe, but even the most scholarly and most godly Protestants would tell you the same things I am!

Perhaps, but if lowly me can "question" some of your statements I am sure better folk would also .Note I said "some' not all of your stuff. I am not an "onlyist' by most definitions. Remember, I have been called a protestant and we supposedly have a problem with authority, even a one version only authority.
.

With some research and patience, you will find out the ones which are held as the better modern ones versus the garbage common vernacular of the street ones.

Good .We agree that some modern translations are bad. We both have judging "criteria" to that end, just like the "onlyists"