|
|
Post by boraddict on Jul 1, 2019 8:01:30 GMT -6
Thank you reepicheep for that reference and here is a quote from that site:
"Unfortunately, Westcott and Hort are still infamous names with respect to the Bible, despite their text not being the basis of any major modern translations. Most mentions of the pair today are from detractors of their work, particularly those supporting the King James Only movement (KJVO). Such critics tend to focus entirely on Westcott’s and Hort’s non-orthodox spiritual beliefs. In truth, both men held to several ideas that modern conservative Christianity would consider heretical. Then again, the same can be said for church fathers such as Origen, Jerome, and Augustine. And, it’s worth noting that the King James translators themselves were, variously, supporters of Anglicanism, infant baptism, and so forth.
"
According to the author, their (Westcott and Hort) text is not the basis for any major translation, and today the opponents of their work are particularly those supporting the King James Only movement. Wow! I did not know that. Actually, I did not know that there was a King James Only movement on top of that other stuff.
Personally I like the KJV because of the Old English and have learned to look beyond those limitations in the language. But, I also like the NIV that I find more accurate in some instances over the KJV. I also like some of the standard versions and so forth but I tend to stay away from the denomination specific versions like the one developed for the Jehovah Witnesses; although, I do have two copies of that Bible on my shelf.
I picked up an off the wall version at a county fair type of event and the text of that version was way out there. I mean it was not even close to being accurate but was someones idea of a correct interpretation; not scientifically translated from the older texts in any way but heavily denominational.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobthewebguy on Jul 1, 2019 9:55:14 GMT -6
With all due respect, they are responsible for almost every translation that we have today. So summing up what everyone has offered. No we don't have a perfect Word of God today. None of our bible translations are perfect. Which of course means that God lied in Psalms 12. We do have a perfect inspired version but, it's not anywhere here on Earth. So again, men wrote and translated the bible that we have now not GOD. Everyone keeps mentioning this fantasy about the KJV translators didn't even hold up their own translation as perfect. Yet no one can show me where that quote came from. That all translations are good even though all of them are wrong except the KJV. Who cares about Westcott and Hort even though they were devout Catholics who disagreed with every major bible doctrine. And Gary, your proof or errors with the KJV are with Elizabethan spelling and punctuation or bad printing presses? Do you have any errors in context/ Because I just showed you all about Luke 10:1.. How do you misstransliterate a number? What a confusing God we serve. He can't even come up with the correct number of people He sent out that day. If I were an unbeliever, I would say that your God can't even get that correct. And the unbeliever would be correct.
Oh and also, I think every Pastor that I have seen hold up their bible and say, "this is the perfect inner-ant Word of God" I guess they are all lying...
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Jul 1, 2019 10:24:31 GMT -6
Can you show that the translators thought their version was perfect and inspired? Because I didn't see that when I was reading through their introduction. (I will add that I haven't finished reading it all yet, but so far it seems that they are just set on providing a translation in the language the people understand.)
Did you read the quotes I posted from them?
Did you read the link reepicheep posted?
You also seemed to miss my question addressing translating the Bible into other languages.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobthewebguy on Jul 1, 2019 10:33:08 GMT -6
Oh I forgot, the KJV is the perfect translation for the English speaking world. i don't think it's translated in other languages perfectly. I have to be honest with you, I'm pretty lazy and I have ADD big time... Can you give me just one of those quotes about the KJV? I will look it up.... I haven't looked at this entire sight, (remember I'm lazy) but, I think it sums up the debate for me. www.biblebelievers.com/Branson_KJV2.html#15Those man made "Bibles" are commonly known today as the Alexandrian manuscripts, and the Westcott and Hort "Bibles." You know them as the NIV, ASV, RSV, TEV, King James II, The Living Bible, The New Scofield Reference Bible, The Feminist Bible, The Berkeley Bible, The Phillips Translation, and the various Feminist Bibles, which refer to God and Christ in the neuter gender, or as father/mother God. New ones keep oozing off the presses, so that there are over one hundred, maybe two hundred as we near the year 2000. We have no inclination nor need to analyze the Alexandrian manuscripts. Their name comes from the ancient school of generally careless and liberal scholars in Alexandria, Egypt. Suffice it to say it appears these manuscripts were deliberately corrupted and changed by ancient liberals. All versions other than the KJV 1611 come through the works of the liberal nineteenth century theologians Westcott and Hort, and their works are based exclusively upon the Alexandrian manuscripts. We shall limit our brief comments to those gentlemen, then, referring the reader to the recommended reading at the end of this book for documentation concerning both Westcott and Hort and the Alexandrian manuscripts. Let us repeat it to be sure of understanding: The Alexandrian manuscripts were liberal corruptions of Scripture, and Westcott and Hort were liberals. All translations other than the KJV 1611, and almost all Greek texts of every kind are exclusively based on Westcott's and Hort's works. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Jul 1, 2019 10:35:46 GMT -6
I posted them on this thread and a link to the whole intro. And I understand about ADD, I homeschool two ADD kids.  |
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 1, 2019 11:04:31 GMT -6
Oh I forgot, the KJV is the perfect translation for the English speaking world. i don't think it's translated in other languages perfectly. I have to be honest with you, I'm pretty lazy and I have ADD big time... Can you give me just one of those quotes about the KJV? I will look it up.... I haven't looked at this entire sight, (remember I'm lazy) but, I think it sums up the debate for me. Bob what did the English speaking world do before the KJV was published? You are discounting the work of the Spirit of God as He is the teacher. Your statement reads like "God was caught off guard by the other translations and they shouldnt have been published". This is silly, you're being silly about this. Its all about content and context. When sharing your experience with people, do you speak or quote scripture to people in the KJV? I don't (mostly because I cant)! I explain to people on a level they can understand in a language they can understand and the Holy Spirit does the rest. Oh and being 'lazy' doesnt translate properly, let's see how the perfect version of the bible says it. Prov 10:4 Prov 10:26 Prov 12:27 Prov 13:4 Prov 19:15 the correct terminology is sluggard Bob, you're not lazy you're a sluggard, according to the KJV! |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Jul 1, 2019 11:16:32 GMT -6
One thing my studies over the past year has reinforced is that context and the whole of Scripture is so important. But also that sometimes we have to study a bit deeper to see if we are getting the context correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by fitz on Jul 1, 2019 11:50:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by bobthewebguy on Jul 1, 2019 12:54:04 GMT -6
never mind....
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 1, 2019 12:57:48 GMT -6
Bob, youre being lazy now, we want to hear your opinion. what if youre right? |
|
|
|
Post by bobthewebguy on Jul 1, 2019 13:04:54 GMT -6
No just a sluggard. You know to me, one of the most important test is the "common sense" test. If you say that God did not preserve His Word and that we don't have His perfect WORD than that doesn't make sense. God really blew it...He want's us to Live by Every Word of God, yet He failed miserably to let us know what is His Word. Again, we go back to discernment. The liberal church today needs discernment. But, I'm afraid it's too late. So never mind is a good response and probably sluggardly.
One more thought, Any Christian today would be destroyed in a debate with an evolutionist. They have muddied the water so thick that you can't see through it. It's a demonic trick. As with the KJV debate... Anyone who thinks Westcott and Hort compares to the KJV is deceived.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 1, 2019 13:15:13 GMT -6
No just a sluggard. You know to me, one of the most important test is the "common sense" test. If you say that God did not preserve His Word and that we don't have His perfect WORD than that doesn't make sense. God really blew it...He want's us to Live by Every Word of God, yet He failed miserably to let us know what is His Word. Again, we go back to discernment. The liberal church today needs discernment. But, I'm afraid it's too late. So never mind is a good response and probably sluggardly. One more thought, Any Christian today would be destroyed in a debate with an evolutionist. They have muddied the water so thick that you can't see through it. It's a demonic trick. As with the KJV debate... Anyone who thinks Westcott and Hort compares to the KJV is deceived. Bob you quit too easily. God preserved His word, sure. through His Spirit He did. It doesn't matter if you read the 1611 KJV or the version before that. Did you know there was one over 100 earlier by Tyndale? Why not that one? Does it really matter? Moreover, if people are like me, they may not understand half of the KJV 'thee, thouest, believeth' and so on. what is the difference between the content of the below: KJV ESV I also beg to differ with you on " Any Christian today would be destroyed in a debate with an evolutionist". How do you know this? People on this site alone have apologetic mindsets and very capable of holding their own. You make a general statement about all Christians when you simply dont know all Christians. In fact you remind me a little of Elijah but not for the right reason. He assumed all had gone the way of Baal, but God had to correct him. |
|
|
|
Post by bobthewebguy on Jul 1, 2019 13:23:22 GMT -6
Discernment Brother.... What Most Christians don't realize is that Christianity is in a WAR with the Devil and The World. I went to a Southern Baptist Church last year for a few months because my best friend taught Sunday School there. Well, the fact that they didn't use the KJV almost sent me flying out of there, but, when they had a female preach one day and a Catholic Priest preach another day, well, I never went back. Talk about allowing in the enemy. But, how many Christians think like that? Do you? I am against everything that my perfect bible is against. I am against women preaching. I am against Catholics behind the pulpit. I am against perversions of the bible. I am against Charismatic feelings and experiences that are not in the bible. But, again, who thinks like that today? I know thousands that are in KJV only churches. They are a dying breed. But, as we get close to the end, what would you expect? A KJV revival? I doubt it...
ok, "Most Christians couldn't handle a good evolutionist." I'm guilty of hyperbole.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 1, 2019 13:28:57 GMT -6
We would disagree on lots of things then Bob. I understand what Paul said about women not teaching, but why? Do you understand the reason why? Please help others understand why it is important in your viewpoint.
Also when you are asked specific questions on this forum by moderators, please answer them. Most often all of the mods here participate because we love God, are seeking a better understanding of who He is and want to share our experiences in Him, not because we moderate. Right now however I am moderating...I asked you something and expect that you would do me the courtesy and answer that question. to repeat it - what is the difference between the two passages from John chapter 3 in my prior post. Why is the content of the ESV not permitted in Bobs worldview?
|
|
|
|
Post by bobthewebguy on Jul 1, 2019 13:43:08 GMT -6
OK one at a time. The bible teaches clearly that women are to be a helpmate to their man. They are not to usurp authority over the man. They are to help the man. Not rule over them. There are only exceptions in the bible where women are in any spiritual authority. It is quite clear the requirements for a Pastor. And it ain't being married to a man. As a Jew, I understand how women only until recently started to become Rabbi's. Look at the wailing wall. Separate women from men. The orthodox would have it no other way. One needs to remember how it was before this last generation that probably began in 1948. Completely different. No women preachers, excuse me, very few women preachers etc. I really never quote scripture because again, I'm lazy, it's difficult, you know the scriptures, and I find it a waste of time. I would if I thought it would help. I would never allow a women to teach me anything if there was a man who could just as well. And please don't anyone give me the political correct stuff. I hope that would hold no ground here.. Let me look at those scriptures you sent. And BTW, no one answered my questions either.
|
|
