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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

what you think of the RcV? I can not read it as it is too Leeish for me.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

what you think of the RcV? I can not read it as it is too Leeish for me.

I prefer the translation by Ingalls, Duane, and Knoch. I still have the original compilation cobbled together from the trainings. At the time it was a valuable improvement to the widely used KJV. I also have the newer NT RecV which is so well worn it is part of my heart. I know where verses are at, the text is satisfactory, the format is familiar, and the references are helpful. All the good stuff is highlighted in yellow. Lots of footnotes are still valuable, but many have been marked as no longer being acceptable.

I do find Robichaux's version to be wordy. Brother ZNP has a few choice words to say about it. It was birthed out of W. & P. Lee's excommunication of Ingalls, and raised on a diet of the ASV 1901. The RecVers really has no need for its existence other than as a marketing product.

That said, I still use it because of inertia and because I'm so cheap. (My wife, in a spat of frustration, once called me the "cheapskate from Cleveland," which honor I hold dearly.) I also have a complete RecV without footnotes in my car (actually a minivan since I hate "normal" cars) which I use when I meet with others. (But I don't let on which version it is because then they will think I'm an alcoholic -- you know "Recovery" version.)

In summary, the RecV, in and of itself, is a good translation. The problem is many of the footnotes and the entanglements with LSM.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In summary, the RecV, in and of itself, is a good translation. The problem is many of the footnotes and the entanglements with LSM.

One of the most jarring things for me when I started reading other translations other than RcV was the use of the term "adoption" in place of "sonship" in verses like Ephesians 1:5 (ESV):

"he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will"

According to both Thayer's and Strong's concordance, the Greek word huiothesia rendered as "sonship" in the RcV is really "adoption as sons".

Cases like this make me mistrust the RcV because if there's one case where WLee's theology was used in the choice of words there are probably many other occurrences as well.

It was almost traumatic at first but I've come to appreciate our adoption as sons of God. Adoption is a choice and it's done out of love.

A pastor I know who was orphaned related how his Grandma didn't have to adopt him, but she did so because she loved him. That a parent would willingly sacrifice their life to raise someone they don't have to speaks of more love than a parent whose normal duty is to raise their biological children.

Jesus didn't have to die for us, it was a choice. Thank you God for loving us enough to give up your life for us when you didn't have to!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bearbear

One of the most jarring things for me when I started reading other translations other than RcV was the use of the term "adoption" in place of "sonship" in verses like Ephesians 1:5...

"Sonship" emphasizes our birth and growth in the divine life.

"Adoption" emphasizes our legal status using the background of Roman law.

Both are seen in the scripture. It was just another one of those things where Witness Lee tried to convince us that his interpretation excelled over all of Christianity. Nigel Tomes had a good article on this very topic: "LSM's Attack on Adoption ..."

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"Sonship" emphasizes our birth and growth in the divine life.

"Adoption" emphasizes our legal status using the background of Roman law.

Both are seen in the scripture. It was just another one of those things where Witness Lee tried to convince us that his interpretation excelled over all of Christianity. Nigel Tomes had a good article on this very topic: "LSM's Attack on Adoption ..."

We get the best of both worlds as his children. We get to have God's life and heck he even lives in us. But he not only loved us enough to let us share in his life, but he even "liked" us enough to adopt us.

That was a breakthrough for me to realize that not only does God love us but he actually genuinely likes us. We take love for granted sometimes because it's used in contexts that are often forced like in the case of family, but liking is whole 'nother matter based on choice and tastes.

I think Jesus showed this in the way that he lived by seeking sinners to eat and drink with. He looked past their weaknesses and saw something he liked enough that he would think nothing of maintaining his own dignity to be seen with them. (Granted his ultimate goal was to lead them into repentance to become saints, but I'm sure he also enjoyed his fellowship with them).

John 15:15
No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.

[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.

[Chris Fleming]

Oh I love talking to Mormons! It's really been too long! They came to my door a few years ago, looking all happy. They didn't look too happy after long! LOL I didn't know they "read" any NT Bible at all. They were completely ignorant of every verse I quoted to them.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

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.

[Chris Fleming]

Originally Posted by Ohio

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

Apparently not all of them...

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Chris Fleming

Oh I love talking to Mormons! It's really been too long! They came to my door a few years ago, looking all happy. They didn't look too happy after long! LOL I didn't know they "read" any NT Bible at all. They were completely ignorant of every verse I quoted to them.

I think they carry a 'real' bible for show. It is a KJ they use but I noticed their KJ had LDS commentaries !!!! So they must buy their KJ from their LDS bookstore.

The last time I spoke with them...they had knocked at my friend's house door. She is a young (strong in Faith) believer but does not know the scriptures like I do. Of course I only have 30 yrs up on her in scripture reading/believing in Christ.

She did not know how to get rid of them even though she told them she was a born again believer. So she asked me to come over. YAHOO!

I took my handy dandy KJ with me that is highlighted and personal notes on the side.

These guys were different from other missionaries I have talked to because this was a 4 'square' bunch. 2 young inexperienced missionaries and their mentors, a married couple. First time I see a woman 'missionary'.

It was them against the LIGHT OF ALMIGHTY GOD !

The young guys were really green at this. You could tell they had memorized & rehearsed their schpeel over & over. Very mechanical. Their bibles looked as if they had never opened them either. They tried pushing their other books..Book of Mormon and whatever the other one is called. I let them talk.

You know the story... 'prophet Joseph Smith'

Since I had a bible, they asked me to read out of Amos 3:7. LOL !! So I flipped right to it. You should have seen their eyes bug out when they saw my very seasoned bible!!! Not only did they ask me to read that scripture but I had it highlighted !! LOL "UTAH, we have a problem!"

So then they tried focusing on my friend who kept telling them she was a new believer. And boy did they want to reel her in. But she kept telling them I knew the bible better than she did and I was helping get to know the bible. Too hilarious.

I also told them I could never believe in their religion because Jesus is NOT the brother of Lucifer. He is God Himself in the Flesh.. And so I took them to John 1:1- 17, 1 John 5:6-7, and Isaiah 9:6. Probably to other scriptures as well.

I/we were very nice towards them. They need the One True God as much as anyone. So hopefully, the Seed of LIFE and the SEED of God's True Love was planted.

So much FUN to be in the Presence of God and shining His Light on these guys.

[Chris Fleming]

Mormons are really insidious--they specifically target new believers or nominal/"cultural" Christians trying to turn them into their .

I really feel for them and look forward to talking with some of them again. Over the years I've had a few encounters--they ALWAYS say they "followed their heart" when it came to their book of mormon. When I tell them what the Bible says about the heart, as in, it being wicked and incurably so, they go from being friendly looking like they want to bolt right then and there.

Don't know how Amos 3:7 proves ANYTHING of their cult. I asked them to read Galatians 1:8, 9. Kinda drops that truth bomb on them.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I think they carry a 'real' bible for show. It is a KJ they use but I noticed their KJ had LDS commentaries !!!! So they must buy their KJ from their LDS bookstore.

The last time I spoke with them...they had knocked at my friend's house door. She is a young (strong in Faith) believer but does not know the scriptures like I do. Of course I only have 30 yrs up on her in scripture reading/believing in Christ.

She did not know how to get rid of them even though she told them she was a born again believer. So she asked me to come over. YAHOO!

I took my handy dandy KJ with me that is highlighted and personal notes on the side.

These guys were different from other missionaries I have talked to because this was a 4 'square' bunch. 2 young inexperienced missionaries and their mentors, a married couple. First time I see a woman 'missionary'.

It was them against the LIGHT OF ALMIGHTY GOD !

The young guys were really green at this. You could tell they had memorized & rehearsed their schpeel over & over. Very mechanical. Their bibles looked as if they had never opened them either. They tried pushing their other books..Book of Mormon and whatever the other one is called. I let them talk.

You know the story... 'prophet Joseph Smith'

Since I had a bible, they asked me to read out of Amos 3:7. LOL !! So I flipped right to it. You should have seen their eyes bug out when they saw my very seasoned bible!!! Not only did they ask me to read that scripture but I had it highlighted !! LOL "UTAH, we have a problem!"

So then they tried focusing on my friend who kept telling them she was a new believer. And boy did they want to reel her in. But she kept telling them I knew the bible better than she did and I was helping get to know the bible. Too hilarious.

I also told them I could never believe in their religion because Jesus is NOT the brother of Lucifer. He is God Himself in the Flesh.. And so I took them to John 1:1- 17, 1 John 5:6-7, and Isaiah 9:6. Probably to other scriptures as well.

I/we were very nice towards them. They need the One True God as much as anyone. So hopefully, the Seed of LIFE and the SEED of God's True Love was planted.

So much FUN to be in the Presence of God and shining His Light on these guys.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Since I had a bible, they asked me to read out of Amos 3:7. LOL !! So I flipped right to it. You should have seen their eyes bug out when they saw my very seasoned bible!!! Not only did they ask me to read that scripture but I had it highlighted !! LOL "UTAH, we have a problem!"

Too funny!

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Chris Fleming

Mormons are really insidious--they specifically target new believers or nominal/"cultural" Christians trying to turn them into their .

Yeah... they really were trying to figure out how to get to my friend with me out of the way. They were glad I did not live w/her from what I could tell. They left her with a copy of the book of Mormon I believe and called her for days on end. But she never answered their calls.

Don't know how Amos 3:7 proves ANYTHING of their cult. I asked them to read Galatians 1:8, 9. Kinda drops that truth bomb on them.

Well... they believe Joseph Smith is their 'prophet' and god (the god of this age)'revealed to his prophet' to build the Mormon church through the finding of those golden tablets.

You know how that ole' serpent is Chris?? He manipulates the Word of God and then quotes it. So they took Amos 3:7

Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but (until) He revealeth His Secret unto His servants the prophets.

[countmeworthy]

Was not sure where exactly I could post this You Tube on the Book of Revelation as we have never heard it BEFORE !!

Karen Heimbuch 'performed' the entire book w/the London Symphony Orchestra several years ago. It is not sung but she and the orchestra WOWS the audience bringing the book to LIFE like no one else has done.

It is not the entire book and when you watch it, you will understand why. The entire presentation can be purchased on line.

The Bible's Book of Revelation is presented in stellar oratory by guest pastor Karen Heimbuch to the congregation of Hope Center of Christ.

Chapters 1-7, 21 and 22 of the book are presented over a sound scape weaved by the London Symphony Orchestra, making a majestic inspirational message from Jesus to all of us.

The presentation begins about the 50 minute mark. The first 50 minutes are Praise / Worship and some fellowship at the church building.

Hope you will watch and enjoy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B57xNK6D4Bc

[Chris Fleming]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Well... they believe Joseph Smith is their 'prophet' and god (the god of this age)'revealed to his prophet' to build the Mormon church through the finding of those golden tablets.

You know how that ole' serpent is Chris?? He manipulates the Word of God and then quotes it. So they took Amos 3:7

Of course, it's just an incredibly weak argument--one verse from the OT confirms Smith finding whatever and becoming THE church thousands of years later?

It really throws Mormons for a loop when you ask them how come they are not Muslims--Muhammad saw an "angel" as well. Those two are actually quite similar.