Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
avbunyan

The Origen of all Modern Versions

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Faber said:

1. Then the AV is inaccurate concerning prayer because the Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer.

2. You keep focusing on Origen, but I keep focusing on the words of the text. - By the way, you still haven't supplied a citation from him. You asserted what you think he affirmed, but I am asking for proof. 

1. Where do  you find prayer being directed to Jesus instead of the Father?

2. By citing the MVs I am citing Origen's works for he is the author of the 5th column of the Hexapla which is the infamous Septuagint.  You can get this from the works of Hills, Fuller, Ruckman, Clark, Burgon, and more.  See Dr. Ruckman's book "The Christian's Handbook on Manuscript Evidence" and his later  work on "Biblical Scholarship".  My post title sums it up "The Origen of all Modern Versions".  All these MVs can be t raced back to the fifthe column of the Hexapla  which was written by Origen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, avbunyan said:

1. Where do  you find prayer being directed to Jesus instead of the Father?

 

 Here are several examples (among many) here:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes to make comparisons, but nor for personal Bible reading.

 

Why is it that much of the information I present to you goes ignored?

This would include how the NASB demonstrates the Deity of Christ much better in places like Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1 and Jude 1:4 - and yes, as well as John 1:18?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, avbunyan said:

Remember Papa the site I presented was just an overview/review of the work.  The actual work is much larger with much more info. 

 

Archaic?  This is a poor  argument for just because we may not use the word anymore doesn't mean it is wrong - it may just mean we are dumber now. 

Impossible  to understand?  Mercy - the AV was the primary book used in the in the home between 1611 to 1800's or so to teach reading, grammar, etc.!  it seems those old farmers and tinkerers had no trouble understanding those archaic words. These "dumb" backwoodsmen produced t he Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  My 10 children had no problem with the language of the AV.  The AV was translated when the English language was at its peak.  What happened  to yo Papa?  The NASB makes Jesus a begotten god in John 1:18.

These are the archaic words you'll find in the KJV and most people cannot understand a word of it when these confusing words are used.  We don't talk this way and shouldn't read this way either.  I grew up on the KJV but prefer using several versions in my studies.  I would never recommend the KJV. 

 

"Sith the noise of the bruit of this school hath reached to thee-ward, we trust that our concourse liketh you well-particularly those who blaze abroad that there is error here. Whoso setteth thee against us-whoso saith we offend all-speaketh leasing. We be not affrighted, but withal, we are straightened in our bowels. We knoweth well that what thou wilst hear straightway wilt fast close up thy thoughts. With som we be abjects, some have defied us; but there has been no daysman betwixt us. They subvert the simple!"

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, avbunyan said:

1. Probably not but the AV is more accurate and consistent regarding the doctrine of prayer as demonstrated in John 14:14.

 

Not really, since from the Gospel of John we also see the worship which is properly due unto he Lord Jesus in John 5:23 and John 9:38. These accord well with praying to Him as taught in John 14:14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Papa Zoom said:

These are the archaic words you'll find in the KJV and most people cannot understand a word of it when these confusing words are used.  We don't talk this way and shouldn't read this way either.  I grew up on the KJV but prefer using several versions in my studies.  I would never recommend the KJV. 

 

"Sith the noise of the bruit of this school hath reached to thee-ward, we trust that our concourse liketh you well-particularly those who blaze abroad that there is error here. Whoso setteth thee against us-whoso saith we offend all-speaketh leasing. We be not affrighted, but withal, we are straightened in our bowels. We knoweth well that what thou wilst hear straightway wilt fast close up thy thoughts. With som we be abjects, some have defied us; but there has been no daysman betwixt us. They subvert the simple!"

 Say to a person today (even to Christians) that you need to fetch a compass. When they hand you a compass, you then say "I meant 'to go around'" (cf. Acts 28:13, KJV). We don't talk like that today. It would be very confusing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Faber said:

Yes to make comparisons, but nor for personal Bible reading.

 

Why is it that much of the information I present to you goes ignored?

This would include how the NASB demonstrates the Deity of Christ much better in places like Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1 and Jude 1:4 - and yes, as well as John 1:18?

Well - the Catholic bibles are all based upon the same text used by all the MVs.  Just take any MV and compare it with any approved Catholic bible and you will see that they read similar.  But the AV is entirely different.  Again, there a re basically 2 set of manuscripts:  those which originated from Egypt (Origen) - the MVs and those that originated from Asia Minor -  the AV.  Farber  - your MVs came from Egypt.

 

And sorry Farber - I just do not see where these verses are superior to the AV regarding the deity - please show me what I ma missing please.  Thx

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Faber said:

 Say to a person today (even to Christians) that you need to fetch a compass. When they hand you a compass, you then say "I meant 'to go around'" (cf. Acts 28:13, KJV). We don't talk like that today. It would be very confusing.

So true.  I know many young Christians that would totally be turned off by the language.  The Bible is difficult enough as it is when words are understood.  It's beyond silly to expect people on 2018 to read a book written in the 1600's.  Language changes over time and what matters is the message of the Word.  First and foremost it must be understandable.  

 

KJV only advocates should read their version of choice and let others do the same.  Personally I use several versions in my studies.  I even reference the KJV!  But only in concert with other versions.  

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Faber said:

 Say to a person today (even to Christians) that you need to fetch a compass. When they hand you a compass, you then say "I meant 'to go around'" (cf. Acts 28:13, KJV). We don't talk like that today. It would be very confusing.

Mercy - it is not doctrinally wrong - it is not a show stopper.  Farber - just curious, who taught you that the AV is archaic and has errors in it - the Lord or the Devil?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John 1:18 and 14:14 were already addressed, so that's two passages right there. Here are others (even more can be supplied if need be):

 

Titus 2:13

NASB: looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus

KJV: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

The NASB clearly applies 'God' to the Lord Jesus while the KJV is vague.

 

1 Peter 3:15

NASB: but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence

KJV: But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear

The 'Lord', in reference to the Lord Jesus, to whom we are to sanctify is the same "Lord" (YHWH) that is to be sanctified in Isaiah 8:13. The NASB bring this out much more clearly than the KJV.

 

2 Peter 1:1

NASB: Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

KJV: Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

The NASB clearly applies 'God' to the Lord Jesus while the KJV is vague.

 

Jude 1:4

NASB: For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

KJV: For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Greek word for 'Master' in the NASB is despotēs. The fact that it is used in reference to the Lord Jesus clearly demonstrates that He is God. The KJV obscures this truth (cf. 2 Timothy 2:21; 2 Peter 2:1 and Revelation 6:10).

 

Revelation 14:1

NASB: Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads.

KJV: And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

Having the name of the Son written on their foreheads gives much clearer proof that the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of latreuō in Revelation 22:3. This is of vital importance since latreuō is properly due unto God alone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, avbunyan said:

Mercy - it is not doctrinally wrong - it is not a show stopper.  Farber - just curious, who taught you that the AV is archaic and has errors in it - the Lord or the Devil?

Straw man. I never asserted it was doctrinally wrong, but that it is confusing to hear that today when to fetch a compass means to sail around in Acts 28:13 (KJV).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading some of the posts -- Colossians 1:14 "n whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."  How is it Supposed to read?   In Luke 2:33 -- Joseph Was the earthly father of Jesus.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sue D. said:

I've been reading some of the posts -- Colossians 1:14 "n whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."  How is it Supposed to read?   In Luke 2:33 -- Joseph Was the earthly father of Jesus.  

The KJV contains the word "blood" in Colossians 1:14. The newer versions do not, but they clearly do so in Ephesians 1:7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Papa Zoom said:

So true.  I know many young Christians that would totally be turned off by the language.  The Bible is difficult enough as it is when words are understood.  It's beyond silly to expect people on 2018 to read a book written in the 1600's.  Language changes over time and what matters is the message of the Word.  First and foremost it must be understandable.  

 

KJV only advocates should read their version of choice and let others do the same.  Personally I use several versions in my studies.  I even reference the KJV!  But only in concert with other versions.  

 

"It's beyond silly to expect people on 2018 to read a book written in the 1600's."

Have you considered that just maybe we are dumber than those folks in 1611?  The book was clear enough for the missionaries who took it all over the world to the heathen and got miraculous result.  What are the  results of your MVs in the last 50 years or so?

 

" Language changes over time"

Yes it does - it can go downhill!

 

"and what matters is the message of the Word."

Now I have flushed a covey!  You are not concerned about the individual words you are only concerned about the message!!!  The message is in all the versions. But just because you can find a diamond in a trash can doesn't make the trash can a bible.   You might want to do a study of the bible as to what it says regarding the individual words.

 

"KJV only advocates should read their version of choice and let others do the same"

Friend, I am not telling you what bible to read - free country.  You read what  you want - I won't violate your conscience and make you read an AV.  I am just trying t defend the AV while pointing out the dangers of the MVs.

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Faber said:

Straw man. I never asserted it was doctrinally wrong, but that it is confusing to hear that today when to fetch a compass means to sail around in Acts 28:13 (KJV).

Didn't  say you thought  is was doctrinally wrong.  I was just saying there wasn't a doctrinal issue. So we don't use it like that today.  What is the big deal?  Comment it in the margin if you want but don't change it because we talk differently today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up in the KJV -- it was pretty much the only version available.   The language was what was used back when King James 1 authorized the printing of the Bible. And the KJV was a combination of the Bishops Bible and Tyndale's Bible as well as available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.   And the edition used today was revised in 1769.  The first complete Bible printed in English was the Coverdale Bible back in AD 1500.  

     Since then I've been with the older NIV and mostly  the NKJV and some  ESV.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sue D. said:

I've been reading some of the posts -- Colossians 1:14 "n whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."  How is it Supposed to read?   InIn whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:  Luke 2:33 -- Joseph Was the earthly father of Jesus.  

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:  - When one removes the blood they are equating redemption with redemption - Wrong - there can be no forgiveness without the blood.

 

Yes but Joseph did not father Christ.  When Luke (medical doctor) comments in Luke 2:33 he is stating that Joseph did not physically father Jesus for Jesus was virgin born.  When Mary uses father later on it is Mary commenting on it and she used father in the sense he was his earthly father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm tired folks - having trouble responding to 5 different people - this old man is going to bed.

Been fun - God bless!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, avbunyan said:

"It's beyond silly to expect people on 2018 to read a book written in the 1600's."

Have you considered that just maybe we are dumber than those folks in 1611?  The book was clear enough for the missionaries who took it all over the world to the heathen and got miraculous result.  What are the  results of your MVs in the last 50 years or so?

 

" Language changes over time"

Yes it does - it can go downhill!

 

"and what matters is the message of the Word."

Now I have flushed a covey!  You are not concerned about the individual words you are only concerned about the message!!!  The message is in all the versions. But just because you can find a diamond in a trash can doesn't make the trash can a bible.   You might want to do a study of the bible as to what it says regarding the individual words.

 

"KJV only advocates should read their version of choice and let others do the same"

Friend, I am not telling you what bible to read - free country.  You read what  you want - I won't violate your conscience and make you read an AV.  I am just trying t defend the AV while pointing out the dangers of the MVs.

Yes, a language Does change over time.  There are those who take British Lit. in college.  I can't understand That form of the English language, either.  

 

The Gospel unto salvation is shared with everyone / the world of the heathen/ with miraculous results. 

 

You Do realize that translating from one language to another -- different alphabets -- sometimes there are no direct translations of individual letters or words.  A passage is taken  and  translated as closely as possible to the different language / being very careful to keep the message the same and clear enough to be understood.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's late here in Texas, too.  Going to bed, myself.  😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am willing to debate this in the one on section so you will only be dealing with 1 person (me).

 

 How about this title:

 The KJV is a better translation than the NASB in presenting the Lord Jesus as God.

 

 Since you seem so passionate and confident concerning this issue I think it will be advantageous for all others involved to see the evidence presented from both sides.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the pun in the thread title. 😀

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, avbunyan said:

“Thank you avbunyan for your response.”

You are welcome, Farber.

 

“Couldn't I also turn this around and say the KJV attacks the Deity of Christ in John 14:14 by removing the "Me" in reference to the Lord Jesus?”

I guess one could but doctrinally one is to address his requests to God the Father – Matt. 6:5-15, Eph. 2:18 so by Origen inserting “me” indicating that the one praying is going to Jesus is strange.  The texts the AV translators used in 1604 did not have me in them but the Catholic bible did and they had access to the Roman bible but did not refer to it ever.

 

“I admit that the NASB is not as clear in Micah 5:2 but it is clearer in other passages.”

Farber – the issue in Mic 5:2 is not that it is unclear it is clearly false doctrine.  Origen used “from ancient of days” saying Christ came from time whereas the AV said Christ came from everlasting meaning Christ is eternal.  By using “ancient of days” Origen is saying Christ came from somewhere in time and wasn’t eternal – wrong!

FYI, if you right click and drag and highlight text a quote bar will appear.  Select that and it will quote the text with a blue background.  If you want to quote the entire text just use the quote button in the bottom left corner.  Makes it much easier to follow posts........

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Placable37 said:

I like the pun in the thread title. 😀

True that. I just wish Origen (moderator) was here to defend Origen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Privacy Policy