Bible Translations

[Chris Fleming]

Amazed that the people who claim to have the "ministry of the age" missed this verse in their Bible.

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages...ontroversy.htm

The absence of that verse is astounding but also noticed that they got Matt 9:13 not quite right. "...for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners UNTO REPENTANCE". That's how it is supposed to be but for some reason, they leave out the need for repentance. Some translations leave that out, including the "recovery version". Without it, it could give a person the impression that the Lord is all about just loving sinners w/o the need to turn from their sin. Hear this a lot from unbelievers.

I'm not saying that one should throw away their "recovery" versions. Nor am I becoming a KJV-onlyist. But I have to say that I find the lack of these things in their Bible to be....disturbing.

Are there any others?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Chris Fleming

Amazed that the people who claim to have the "ministry of the age" missed this verse in their Bible.

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages...ontroversy.htm

The absence of that verse is astounding but also noticed that they got Matt 9:13 not quite right. "...for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners UNTO REPENTANCE". That's how it is supposed to be but for some reason, they leave out the need for repentance. Some translations leave that out, including the "recovery version". Without it, it could give a person the impression that the Lord is all about just loving sinners w/o the need to turn from their sin. Hear this a lot from unbelievers.

I'm not saying that one should throw away their "recovery" versions. Nor am I becoming a KJV-onlyist. But I have to say that I find the lack of these things in their Bible to be....disturbing.

Are there any others?

Johanneum Comma rises again!

It's not that these later translations took verses out of the Bible (as the King Jamers insist), but that King James added extra verses to the Greek manuscripts, some of which took the form of hand scribbled notes from zealous scribes.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Johanneum Comma rises again!

It's not that these later translations took verses out of the Bible (as the King Jamers insist), but that King James added extra verses to the Greek manuscripts, some of which took the form of hand scribbled notes from zealous scribes.

The dispute over the Comma Johanneum will never be resolved unless we come up with the autographed copy of 1 Jn. Which is very unlikely.

And if the RcV don't have it it's because the basis for their translation came from the Nestle-Aland 26th edition. Which is based upon the critical text, as opposed to the Received text (Textus Receptus), that the KJV is based upon.

And we've beat this horse to death many times, on the old Bereans forum. Cuz we had a TR-KJV only sister on the forum, really arguing against the Critical Text, as it eliminates, she says, words spoken by Jesus. She was so fervent about it that she blamed all the problems with Witness Lee, and the local church, on the fact they are standing on an "apostate version" of the NT.

I had a lot of fun with her. I really love her. But in the end we don't have any autographed copies of any of the NT books. So no one can prove with empirical evidence, who is right and who is wrong.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Chris Fleming

Amazed that the people who claim to have the "ministry of the age" missed this verse in their Bible.

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages...ontroversy.htm

The absence of that verse is astounding but also noticed that they got Matt 9:13 not quite right. "...for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners UNTO REPENTANCE". That's how it is supposed to be but for some reason, they leave out the need for repentance. Some translations leave that out, including the "recovery version". Without it, it could give a person the impression that the Lord is all about just loving sinners w/o the need to turn from their sin. Hear this a lot from unbelievers.

I'm not saying that one should throw away their "recovery" versions. Nor am I becoming a KJV-onlyist. But I have to say that I find the lack of these things in their Bible to be....disturbing.

Are there any others?

1 John 5:7-8
7 For there are Three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these Three are ONE. (When I nudge people on this scripture by saying to them, 1 John 5:7 says for there are Three that bear witness in heaven: The Father, ___________ ??? At this point so far all say, "the SON". I then show them the scripture. It does not say 'the SON'. It says 'the WORD'. Food for thought. :-) )

8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood; and these three agree as ONE.

I have heard vs 8 was 'added' to the KJ. IF SO GLAD they did !

I like using these verses on people who insist Jesus is the SON of God but not God. I take them to John 1:1-14. Once they see that the WORD, Who IS GOD became flesh and dwelt among us, I take them to these verses.

But only the Spirit of God can open their hearts and their eyes. Make it so Lord. Make it so. Amen.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Chris Fleming

I'm not saying that one should throw away their "recovery" versions. Nor am I becoming a KJV-onlyist. But I have to say that I find the lack of these things in their Bible to be....disturbing.

It takes a healthy dose of fear and superstition to "believe" that the KJV is the "authorized" version of the Bible (note that it was the King of England who authorized his own version, and btw, I still have a copy of the opening credits dedicated to ole James -- pure idolatry), and that the Textus Receptus was some universally "received" Greek manuscript, sanctioned from on High.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It takes a healthy dose of fear and superstition to "believe" that the KJV is the "authorized" version of the Bible (note that it was the King of England who authorized his own version, and btw, I still have a copy of the opening credits dedicated to ole James -- pure idolatry), and that the Textus Receptus was some universally "received" Greek manuscript, sanctioned from on High.

I hear you Ohio!
I used to get perturbed at preachers who put their names on the Bible: Jack Van Impe Prophesy bible, John Hagee prophesy bible, Charles Stanley, etc...
(the RcV is in a class by itself)

Then I realized 2 things:
1) why did I not question "King James"? It does not simply say "Holy Bible".

2) What about the bibles used by people who do not speak English? What translation do they use?

I love having Biblegateway.com bookmarked because it has a gazillion translations. It makes it easy for me to search scriptures in different 'translations'.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I hear you Ohio!

Then I realized 2 things:
1) why did I not question "King James"? It does not simply say "Holy Bible".

2) What about the bibles used by people who do not speak English? What translation do they use?

If I was a faster typer, I would post that intro to the original KJV. It is simply pathetic -- bunch of slurpers sucking up to the king of England.

[Chris Fleming]

I've experienced KJV-ONLY-ists. They can be like rabid dogs, even suggesting that if you haven't been saved from that particular Bible you are probably not saved. That's why I'm not one. But the KJV is becoming more appealing to me.

But about that 1st John verse in particular...

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages...-kjv-bible.htm

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Chris Fleming

I've experienced KJV-ONLY-ists. They can be like rabid dogs, even suggesting that if you haven't been saved from that particular Bible you are probably not saved. That's why I'm not one. But the KJV is becoming more appealing to me.

But about that 1st John verse in particular...

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages...-kjv-bible.htm

Keep a KJ handy when witnessing to Mormons. That version is your ammo. They only 'read' KJ so if you refute them w/another translation they'll fight you every step of the way.

Remember too... Mormons believe Jesus is Lucifer's brother. Son of God only... not God in the Flesh. Isaiah 9:6, John 1:1-17, 1 John 5:6-7 very handy. Any scriptures that refer to Jesus as the WORD of God will make them think....maybe draw them to the TRUTH AND THE LOVE OF GOD through Jesus.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Chris Fleming

I've experienced KJV-ONLY-ists. They can be like rabid dogs, even suggesting that if you haven't been saved from that particular Bible you are probably not saved. That's why I'm not one. But the KJV is becoming more appealing to me.

But about that 1st John verse in particular...

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages...-kjv-bible.htm

Textual scholars are in agreement that this verse is a corruption of the original autograph by John.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Chris Fleming

Amazed that the people who claim to have the "ministry of the age" missed this verse in their Bible.

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages...ontroversy.htm

The absence of that verse is astounding but also noticed that they got Matt 9:13 not quite right. "...for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners UNTO REPENTANCE". That's how it is supposed to be but for some reason, they leave out the need for repentance. Some translations leave that out, including the "recovery version". Without it, it could give a person the impression that the Lord is all about just loving sinners w/o the need to turn from their sin. Hear this a lot from unbelievers.

I'm not saying that one should throw away their "recovery" versions. Nor am I becoming a KJV-onlyist. But I have to say that I find the lack of these things in their Bible to be....disturbing.

Are there any others?

I like ESV for word by word and NLT for sentence by sentence translation. The YouVersion Holy Bible app for iOS/Android is great for switching between versions. I really enjoy reading the NLT because it sheds light on verses from a perspective that can be new to many readers.

Take 1 Cor 4:20 in the NLT for example:

"For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God's power."

Also I never understood the book of Job until I read it in the NLT. It makes bible reading very enjoyable without losing much of the original meaning (unlike what I heard about The Message translation)

I also like KJV because as you pointed out, it uses different manuscripts from modern translations. One of my favorites is Romans 8:1 http://biblehub.com/romans/8-1.htm

The extra phrase "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." makes a huge difference when forming doctrines on soteriology.

All in all, if I'm ever confused about which translation has the right meaning, I always go to my handy Strong's concordance and Greek/English interlinear

For example did you know the verb "believe" in John 3:16, "pisteuodon" is written in the present continuous tense in Greek? You wouldn't know that reading in English, but read in the original Greek the implication is that one has to continually trust and commit themselves into Jesus in order to inherit eternal life.