There are many translations, so my advice is to start a collection lol then with the different translations you can compare the Bibles, and the knowledge you will gain will expand! At the end of the day it is our relationship with God that will matter, sometimes NLT will explain things better than NIV, or ESV to NKJV and so forth. I only pray that whatever I read, brings me closer to God through Jesus
Brandon McCallum I own about 60 bibles, some not even published in over40 plus years. I do exactly what you recommended!😊😊 three bibles I definitely do not trust, the NWT by the JW, the Bible put out by the Mormons with Joseph Smith’s translation and the Message!! But I use many at a time to help me understand. I love the KJ NASB, AMPLIFIED, NKJ, 😊😊
Personally, I like the Hollman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). But I also believe that God can speak to us through any means he chooses....so any version is okay as long as it speaks to you. Exception are those that clearly alter the text to change its meaning such as the Queen James Version where verses against homosexuality are blatantly eliminated or altered to change their meaning/message.
Thanks for your comments. I miss your radio broadcasts here in Texas. In 1964 my ship's homeport was Apra Harbor, Guam and the local radio station carried your broadcasts in the evening.
I thoroughly enjoy the 1599 Geneva Bible. It was published 12 years before the JKV. The notes also do not promote the heretical ideas of Darby like dispensationalism, futurism, and the rapture doctrine.
Rapture doctrine is not false doctrine. Its clearly in the Bible if you studied the endtimes. The word Rapture is not used in the Bible. But its teaching is there. There is verses that prove it.
@@Johnkoth the second coming of Jesus Christ & the resurrection of the living & the dead, Yes, but not a pretrib rapture, that is read into the text w/ eisegesis
@@Johnkoth Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, modern Dispensational Theology falls apart, and the pretrib removal of the Church falls with it.
@@Johnkoth ⚠️The pre-tribulation rapture is counter reformation false theology spawned from the pen of Francisco Ribera; Jesuit monk, circa 1585 A.D. And the strange bedfellow of this false teaching is the seven year tribulation. A so called gap in the 70 weeks.
In no particular order here are my favorites: 1. NKJV (my favorite all-around Bible to study from since it consistently provides footnotes regarding the other manuscript readings and variations, plus I love how it capitalizes pronouns referring to Deity). 2. ESV (My favorite Bible to teach from since it blends the best of both worlds of formal equivalence and readability, plus I like the underlying Greek text it utilizes). 3. HCSB/CSB (Just an overall solid translation and a great alternative to the NIV in case the gender neutral controversy is too much for one to handle, however there are some things I wish were unchanged in the CSB from the HCSB but more about that later if anyone is interested) 4. NASB (In my opinion it's very similar to the NKJV but I think the NASB does a better job with the Greek verb tenses in many places like the HCSB/CSB. A great example of this is the NASB's rendering of Romans 8:13-14). 5. NIV (I know the NIV has received its share of criticism (and some of it for good reason) but I still consider this translation one of the best especially in the Old Testament. The way it renders the Hebrew as far as drawing out its meaning in many places is pretty solid.)
My favourites are the AV because of its accuracy and impact and the NKJV for the like reasons. The manuscript base, of both, is rooted in the best and most numerous manuscripts, but I also use other versions, too, because at times they can be better at putting a point across even though, generally, they are less reliable in my view.
MWJ '90 I don’t think there’s questions about the Deity of Christ or to Whom the text speaks of in the Njkv as is in the kjv, and there’s no catholic bias in Acts 12, nor gross mistranslation of pneuma.
@@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786 same here. Those are the 4 I constantly rely on. As stated earlier there are some things I wish were retained in the CSB from the HCSB.
Ezekiel 33:32 And, lo, thou (AV) art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but they do them not.
Hi. Please can you throw more light on "discovery of ancient manuscripts" which shed more light...? Does this refer to the same original manuscripts that Acts for example was translated from?
@arinzeegbuna8356 •See this article "How do the Dead Sea Scrolls buttress God’s preservation of Scripture? (S-I-G-N-S)" > www.equip.org/bible_answers/how-do-the-dead-sea-scrolls-buttress-gods-preservation-of-scripture-s-i-g-n-s/
English being my second language, I read the KJV decades ago as a teen and understood it just fine. The language in the Four Gospels is simply incomparable. To grasp general concepts and histories when actually sharing the Good News with others, however, I've taken everywhere from Kenneth Taylor, to the Good News Bible, to even children's bibles. lol But for personal study and devotion, it's always the King James. Along with Strong's and Wuest's for word studies. Aramaic into English ones and Young's Literal Translation are interesting too, but I don't see them in 'christian' bookshops. Even the KJV is rarely stocked these days.
@@billy_mandalay. amazingly enough. The dollar tree and 99cents store ONLY stock the KJV. And its $1. That should speak volumes to the world. All the others are reproductions by groups of people who wanted to take advantage of a popular commercial industry and had no regard for God's Word. They're all copyrighted and can't be quoted or reproduced without permission. Kjv is only copyrighted by the Crown in UK so that nobody can change the text and continue to call it a KJV.
@@FredMartinez4337 that's a lie I speak Hebrew and it's actually the best trasbalrion I've seen so far objectively I'm not sure about the NT because I don't know Greek but every Greek speaker I've spoken to has told me it's accurate for the Greek too
Some of you reading this comment believe that no translation can be inspired. Did Jesus quote from a BC Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew old testament as some of you assert? Was the Septuagint a perfect translation?
The greek septuagint was translated by descendants of 12 tribes of israel, and was commissioned by the King Ptolemy that was inspired by God through the Holy Spirit. Thats why the translation was PERFECTLY IDENTICAL and AUTHORITATIVE.
Get one or more Bible apps, try different translations. I like the Tecarta app personally. I use e-sword when using a PC. I would study the textual differences between the Majority and Minority texts, get all the info you can, it will help you determine what your ultimate translation philosophy will be.
A compass is not just a magnetic direction finding device, but also a device used for drawing circles around a single point. How do we know he didn't draw a compass which was one of those devices meant for drawing a circle?
Totally agree with you on the NKJV. I think that translation is grossly underrated. My other favorites are the ESV and the NASB. HCSB (now CSB) are also pretty solid translations.
@@eternalhalloween1 the NKJV is my personal favorite for close detailed study. I think it's the most consistent when it comes to documenting textual variations (especially in the New Testament) which I find to be very helpful. Plus I personally like the way it capitalizes pronouns when referring to Deity. The NASB and HCSB does the same thing, but the NKJV is my personal favorite out of the three.
@@mwj9080 I have respect for the NASB and HCSB. And i certainly respect the NKJV. We could debate endlessly. I will say the version I probably use the most is the "Revised Standard." And the only ones I really don't like are the NIV and the NRSV. It's complicated why I don't like the NIV. And you can probably guess I do NOT like the obnoxious overly gender inclusive language in the NRSV.
@@eternalhalloween1 No I agree with the majority of your statement. Thank you for sharing! I love getting into this. I do want to ask, what are your thoughts on the NIV?
cuinn837 Except there is no official English translation of The Bible for the Orthodox. I suppose in the sense that all Bibles are the product of the compilation work of the Orthodox Church we ALL use Orthodox Bibles.
The vast majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts which have been discovered since 1611 agree with and support the kind of text which underlies the King James Authorised Version/New King James Version. Many modern versions mistakenly use a very small number of Greek manuscripts which disagree with themselves a great deal, and with the vast majority of extant manuscripts discovered since 1611.
I can't answer for Mr. Hanegraaff but if I may share my insights, yes, it's reliable. But still, I'd recommend you to have another "more literal" translation like the KJV (but I'm not a KJV only person), ESV, or NASB. It's for comparing verses; comparing how verses are rendered is helpful for thinking :-)
Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me (AV) with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
It depends on whether you are looking for the most accurate text, a user friendly version, or a version with good footnotes. I suggest the "Revised Standard" for accuracy, the "Good News" for something user friendly, and the "Jerusalem" for study notes.
Sooner or later, I will be in the process of making a presentation by the the title of: Usurping The Almighty's All Authority: Uncovering The Insidious Agenda To Subvert The Authority of The Holy Scripture Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. I'll say it right off the bat that I am King James only for as long as English is my primary language until God the Saviour calls me home to heaven; even though I'd preferably not make it "The main thing." One thing I would like to point out related to the topic of subjectivism & relativism; something that I've personally told myself & eventually said to other fellow Christians is this: Because quite sadly: it is almost because of the newer Alexandrian-Text based translations of the Bible: That the very definition of what the word of God even is(in the sense that it is perceived by most people - but sadly even, by most Christians): has become so subjective if not outright relativistic. And this whole idea that no specific translation is or can be inspired: really comes from when any sense of value in truth of the word of God is lowered. In a sense: The Bible(in referring to the 1611 Scriptures): is not only merely written as beautiful poetry: but in many other ways as well is primarily written almost like a legal document. And this is done for a very real & valid reason. In the very real sense the Scriptures utilizes certain & specific choice of words, terms & phrases for a very good, valid & legitimate reason. From what I see: is that our Advesary has gone to so much effort to simply discredit the word of God. Whether it is has been through kooks & coons & various & differing cults that have misused & abused the word of God to their own advantage. Of course, it does go without saying that the falling away from the soundness of faith & from being grounded in the Gospel of grace has for the most part existed since the New Testament Body of Christ started. But on the other hand: Look at the rapid incline of spiritual deteariation of the mainstream American church or the Body of Christ as a whole that has just happened in the last 50 to 65 years. For a good span of well over a few hundred years up until this contemporary period: Most of what the churches ever heard from - if not most of all they ever even had: Was none other than the Authorized Scriptures. I am not saying that the newer translations are soley responsible for this. But what I am saying is this in relation to the falling away from being in the soundness of faith: that it could be argued that a great multitude of well over 100 if not around 200 different translations that are in varounce with one another that have been used to discredit of what the Bible stands for or what it even is - is most certainly one of the main contributing factors. And that is when we as Christians remove one final Authority pertaining to one Book. And yet when we add to, remove, if not outright single-out that one Authority: we become our own authority in the context of preferring & picking-out whichever subjective & newer translation it may be. Let me state this also: This is not at all about Peter Ruckman; this is not about Gregory Miller; and this is definitely not at all about nit-picky kooks such as Bryan Denlinger. And another truth be told: Neither should this definitely at all be about James White. And definitely should this be at all about Mr. Hanagraph who calls himself THE "Bible answer man". When in reality is just one of God's positions.
How about you people that believe in the absolutely inaccurate Bible of any translation go read direct translations from the Aramaic, source scrolls. You will be amazed what is NOT in the original writings and what is...a far cry from what you assume is in the "inerrant" and "perfect" Bible you blindly accept today. Read the originals...what you believe based on translations is so off from the real thing.
How about you tell us more about these "Aramaic, source scrolls” and exactly what you've learned from them. I would love to hear what you have to say about these "original writings”. Especially since we apparently shouldn’t trust translations of the Bible unless they come from these original Aramaic source scrolls. You mention how we should read the “original writings”, these “Aramaic, source scrolls”, because what we believe is “so off from the real thing”. Given the diversity of Christian belief, you must have really done your homework to make that claim. These original Aramaic source scrolls must really do damage to theological beliefs about biblical inerrancy. So much for the abundance of biblical Hebrew and Greek sources available for critical scholarly review. We should just rely on what is available to us in the ‘original Aramaic scroll sources’. As you tell us to, “read the originals”, I expect that you have done the same. Maybe you could tell us where these alleged original Aramaic scrolls are stored so that we can examine them for ourselves too. Hey, since you brought it up, maybe you can answer a question: What of our biblical beliefs have been so lost in translation from the original Aramaic source scrolls that we are so far off today? You simply must inform us what you’ve learned from your study of these original Aramaic source scrolls, or their "direct translations", in contrast to the diversity of Christian belief. It's fair to say that I think you’d be amazed at what’s not in the Aramaic "source scrolls" you call, “the original writings”.
Collin Keen To denigrate the accepted historian technique of study using source materials as a prime source is rather misguded. Studying the progression of source materials, vis a vis other, later source materials and tracking changes and/or similarities is a fascinating thing in and of itself, but is a standard technique of scholars. no need to denigrate this. Comparing materials determined to be authentic is not in any way a radical way of study, rather it is vital to the understanding of ancient materials, religious or not. Volumes and innumerable thesis have been written on Christian development, the changing of the original message 1) through time, 2) through scribal mistake, 3) through intention, whether for secular political reasons or for political/theological reasons (Church doctrinal shifts via counsels---which are often rooted in secular pressures, but not necessarily, by definition), 4) intentional scribal re-wording, 5) mistranslations that developed by translation from one language to another (King James is LOVELY as a work but is not a word for word - by a FAR stretch - translation of original Bible sources, for example) 6), social misinterpretations and inclusions of regional understandings, cultural filters and biases as well as traditional elements specific to the region where translation/scholarship took place, etc. To review all of this body of work is hardly a thing that can be condensed in a UA-cam chat room. however, I suggest tow things...get a few books, namely "The Bible, a Biography" by Karen Armstrong, "The Great transformation" by the same author, "The Nag Hammadi Library" is an interesting read, and pulls from direct translation of prime source Aramaic scrolls (by James Robinson), "The Old Testament"-I can get you the authors name, not on my tongue...this is wonderful as it goes to the earliest, authenticated (mostly Aramaic or Aramaic dialects) scrolls so you can literally read the earliest know, relatively complete body of writings that ARE the original, Old Testament Bible. Search UA-cam for lectures by Bart Ehrman, a one-time fundamentalist and now head of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill, NC. he has many lectures and writings on the development of the Bible, the mistranslations of the Bible, the importance of prime sources in accurate understanding of the thought and religion that was present during the time of Jesus and how shifts in theology happened over time. He discusses specifically how the "lessons" of Jesus/Christianity have changed over time, directly relating to your query of "what has been learned" by studying prime sources, shift-causation, and the views/theology that was not a part of Jesus's teachings and how these claims/inclusions/beliefs/elements came to be considered sacrosanct bedrocks of Christian theology. Invaluable. I highly suggest you look int that. I must go now-Christmas prep need d! but glad to continue this discussion. please cut down any questions you may have, r topics you wish to discuss so they can be taken one by me. As mentioned, a UA-cam chat is not really the place to write dissertations! So concision would be appreciated in any query. If I do not know an answer I will say so. if I do, concision on both our parts is likely the best way to go with such a massive theological/scientific/historical/epistemological subject. Thank you-
LilSweet Peaches Merry Christmas (eve), Peaches! Thanks in advance for the discussion! I like your thoughts on length! Great idea. You reply was 548 words, my following response is only 514 (not including this opening). I’ll limit my responses to around whatever length you write. Fair enough? Here I go: When you say that it’s misguided to denigrate the accepted technique of study using source materials as a prime source, I completely agree. It’s ironic that you would make that statement since that is precisely what you are doing because there are no original Aramaic source scrolls from which the Bible is translated. But, my criticism is not against linguistic, textual critical, or other relevant approaches. And, you’re right, “Comparing materials determined to be authentic […] is vital to the understanding of ancient materials”. The problem is there are no such authenticated original Aramaic source scrolls from which the Bible has been translated for us to compare directly because they don’t exist. It’s ironic, you refer to Karen Armstrong and Bart Ehrman (and the 2nd and 3rd centuries Egyptian Gnostic Nag Hammadi-the preface of the book you refer to calls them “papyrus codices” or “bound books, not scrolls”). In a book you suggest, “The Bible: A Biography”, a book you suggest, Armstrong refers to Koine Greek as the “Original language” in which the Bible was written (166-167). And Ehrman says his view that “We do not have the originals of the New Testament. Period” is “the view held by a very wide range Bible scholars” in his opening statements against Dan Wallace on the topic, “Is the original New Testament Lost”. And at 26:39 Bart Ehrman says, “the New Testament was originally written in Greek”. Because of the way you worded it, I’m unsure if you're saying the Nag Hammadi itself makes up “the original Old Testament Bible”, only parts of it, of if “the original Old testament Bible” is translated from Aramaic. None of those claims are correct anyway. Nag Hammadi is primarily 2nd-3rd century Egyptian Gnostic collection, the Bible isn’t translated from it. And, the Old Testament was originally translated in Hebrew then later translated as the Greek Septuagint even though the Targum (which is an Aramaic paraphrase translation of the Old Testament Hebrew) was used in synagogues (refer to p. 48 of the book you suggest by Karen Armstrong, “The Bible: A Biography”). Scholars agree that “the originals” were written in Hebrew and Greek (even if translated from Aramaic oral traditions) not Aramaic, and that there are no original (autograph) Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek texts of the Bible today (only about 271 verses in the Old Testament are translated from Aramaic). To speak of “the originals”, or “the original writings” in the way you do makes no sense. It’s even more strange to speak of “Aramaic, source scrolls” from which the Bible was translated-the Bible isn’t translated from Aramaic sources. You’re saying our beliefs are “so far off from the real thing” because of contemporary translations so we should “read the originals” or “direct translations from the Aramaic, source scrolls” which you consider to be the “original writings”. The scholars you point me to disagree with you. Check to you. My question remains, “What of our biblical beliefs have been so lost in translation from the original Aramaic source scrolls that we are so far off today?”
Great comments...and I can clarify...it is 1:44 AM Christmas Day here...I will be back, maybe in a few, as I have a few things to do...and if not, will definitely pick this up with you ASAP. I think length should be as short as possible per topic, for both of us, though. Kindly do not let your length be determined by the length of my writings. Also, please do not let me ramble and I will not let you do the same! Concision via UA-cam= good! But quickly...what we can gather from the earliest texts...what Jesus spoke about was radically different than that which is preached today...and I am not talking about marriage to Mary Magdelene or Dan Brown stuff...but his basic premise was different. Glad you are familiar with Ehrman, Armstrong...sure you know Dominic Crossan...he goes into this at extreme length and I respect his position. Jesus spoke Aramaic and likely some other dialects/Greek, as he was so close to other cities (Ceasaria-sp? Varies. sorry) and so it is plausible the used other languages when in the trade of contracting, building, carpentry, etc. His disciples were certainly unlearned and spoke Aramaic dialects...but they did not write the Bible. Their words were recorded later, in various dialects, some/many! in Aramaic-esp the early ones. and later where shifted and shifted and translated and shifted. The thing to puzzle out is the earliest fragments, source-"ish" documents that give the best insight to what was going on at he time-religiously and in the context of the political/military/and interpretive narrative of the messianic Jewish movement of that particular time. Anyway...as I said...I am giving partial (and so cruddy) answers to your valid points...so let me back off and so to gladly revisit fully later. So I must beg pardon...let us pick this up in the next day or so if I do nto get a second wind tonight. Fascinating stuff, all. I am just late and it is Christmas...I need to be with family early to cook "breffus" and do the holiday gig...you understand, I am sure. You are very interesting to discuss things with-well read and clear in thinking. nice to meet you and happy...whatever you celebrate! Merry Christmas! I assume, but whatever-nice to e-meet you...
LilSweet Peaches I hope you had a great Christmas! I wouldn’t disagree that what is often preached from pulpits today is radically different from what Jesus taught. But, I would disagree that what Jesus taught is radically different from what is presented in the Bible. What is often preached today may be so radically different from Jesus’ message precisely because what is so often preached today reflects a radical departure from Scripture. As for John Dominic Crossan’s arguments, it isn’t the extreme length at which he discusses such things but the extreme nature of his position which so radically departs from Scripture which I I find concerning (what he calls the, “Cross Gospel”, the influence of “historical prophecy”, etc.). But we don’t need to debate Crossan (and the like) here. Also, I agree with you that Jesus and his disciples spoke the local dialects of their region. But, remember when claiming that his disciples were unlearned, you are talking about more than just 12 individuals (Luke 10:1, Acts 1:15). Such a sweeping statement as you make that, “His disciples were certainly unlearned” is too broad. While some like Peter and John were perceived as uneducated (Acts 4:13), this doesn’t suggest that all of Jesus’ disciples were unlearned or even as lowly as were fishermen, carpenters, etc (i.e. Joseph of Arimathea Mark 15:43, Matthew 27:57, 19:38). As well, the gospels don’t claim to be written by unlearned disciples. In fact, the author of the gospel according to Luke doesn’t even claim to be a witness. He claims to be recording the testimony of others (Like 1:1-4). The author of Luke may indeed be well-learned. Paul’s disciple, Luke, is recorded as being a physician (Colossians 4:14). It might even be that other disciples were quite educated. But simply because the gospels don’t explicitly claim authorship doesn’t ipso facto negate the possibility that disciples didn’t author them. Still, in their context it was common to employ the skills of an amanuensis for such a task as recording dictated information. We also find this practiced in the Bible (Jeremiah 36:4, Romans 16:22, etc.). There is historical precedence for the possibility whereby “learned” or “unlearned” disciples may have authored some books in the Bible. Back on point, there remains no evidence to support a hypothesis which claims the Bible was originally written in Aramaic so that Hebrew and Greek texts leave us in error and lost in translation. The consensus among scholars (believers and unbelievers) maintains that the original documents were not written in Aramaic but in Hebrew and Greek. In fact, there’s some original passages that simply couldn’t have been written in Aramaic (Bart Ehrman, “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet the New Millennium, page 95). If you want to ‘puzzle anything out from the earliest fragments or source documents’, you wont find it in original Aramaic sources that don’t exist, my friend. And, unlike Crossan, Nag Hammadi, etc., the Bible is defensible and reliable. I’ve considered the books you've suggested. Maybe you’ll consider one’s I suggest that are relevant to our discussion as well: “The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant?”, by Walter C. Kaiser Jr.; “The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?” by F.F. Bruce; “Can We Still Believe The Bible: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions” by Craig L. Blomberg. These are good and accessible books by well respected scholars.
Most lay people do NOT have access to the original manuscripts; nor can they read them. One simple system I have developed is to consider 3 broad categories concerning Bible translations. Here are the three questions I ask the translators, seminar graduates, etc.: 1. What did they write down, 2. What were their private writings, and 3. What did they do and what organizations did they join? The KJV came from the original texts: Masoretic and the Textus Receptus. There were 56 translators who took 7 years to translate and cross-validate their work. They also spent four years in prayer. This is the 1611 Bible. The NIV and NASB were translated by Westcott and Hort. Compare the two Bibles. You will find things left out and added in to the new versions, which do not correspond to the KJV. Check out what Westcott and Hort have written on their world views. They have written articles on the occult. Hort's mother advises him to come back to the old KJV. Regarding the organizations they belong to and have created: Some are the Ghostly Guild, The Erasmus Club, and the Hermes Club. They also participate in the occult and metaphysics. If one is interested in a Bible in which the creators are interested in metaphysics and occultism, I guess the "newer more modern versions", take the cake. Please check out Gail Riplinger's book "The New Age Bible Versions. She kind of lays it out for people. She had done her research, too. In closing, most theologians use the arguments on the various Bible translations to steer people away from the KJV. You are not going to win with that. Ask yourself, which Bible version is being criticized the most? Check it out. The true word of God is narrow, and few will find it. Thanks for listening.
Bible Answer Man: I used to listen to you all of the time. Now, thank you for correcting me on Westcott and Hort. I am checking the book, "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger. On page 616 she states that W and H created the underlying Greek texts for the new versions. Permit me to say a few words before I leave. I want to talk to your audience. Thank you for your time. Here goes. Just as Hank Hanegraaff has done his research on Bible versions; we, as laity must do ours, also. The Bible version issue is important, because it could determine our eternal destiny. I have chosen to do my own research based on some principles and information.. Gail Riplinger's book, "New Age Bible Versions is a very good start. It is comprehensive and she has a very extensive bibliography. Please check out the following websites: Bryan Denlinger KJVM; Chuck Missler's material, and also Mike Hoggard's material on his discussions. Realize this is a time of great deception. You must also know that the Bible version(s) must meat the following criteria as in the Bible: The Word of God is Truth; The Word of God is Pure; The Word of God is eternal. With these thoughts taken in mind, please feel free to do your own research, to search out the scriptures (KJV) on your own, and always question those in the clergy as they could be mistaken or have a different opinion on this issue. Keep in mind, there is a controversy on this subject. Both sides are using the same manuscripts, but arriving at different conclusions. Be proactive and settle this important issue in your own heart. There is a lot of information out there online. Take responsibility. Trust that Jesus must be glorified. Thank you and God bless.
tim sturm great gaping fish is translated whale, spirit pneuma is translated phantom phantasma and Passover is translated easter.. the kjv waters down Christ’s Deity, and confuses Whom the text speaks of in places... yet “no errors”???
tim sturm the kjv translators as well would not agree with you kjv onlyists, go read their preface. And with kjv version??? There are many, and each differs from each other in places, and from the kjv 1611, and from the tr also.
Genesis 1:1, Deut. 6:4, Job 2:9, Ps. 23:6, Mark 1:19, John 3:16, Acts 12:4, Acts 16:38, 2 Peter 2:4, 1 John 2:2, Rev. 6:8, Rev. 10:1, and other verses show that you are WRONG.
Well since copy right is needed for all the new bibles they all must change ...much taken out .. much put in..so a whale becomes a giant sea creature.. to add words.. but its the words taken out that bother me because God says every Word is pure..so only one can be the truth and the others not.. so if your bible does not know David killed Goliath..but says (2 Sam. 21:19) Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite or if Jesus has now become the one and only son of God instead of the Only begotten Son of God.. only one of these are true.. the one and only is wrong because the same bible also tells us that Adam was the son of God and we are the sons and daughters of God.. Here is an example of words taken out.. Those who are angry at their brother are in fear of Judgement..which make Jesus a sinner if fear of judgement.. but we know Jesus was not a sinner.. so this must be wrong.. they took out only three words.. if you are angry for no reason.. They deleted these verses entirely Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14 Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17 John 5:4 Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:28 Romans 16:24 1 John 5:7! So you can all read what ever you like but remembered how many people in the past died to get the WORD into your hands...starting with the disciples of Christ.. are you sure you have it..and those new books.. who dares to remove the words of the Lord? Did they not read the last page of the bible..? Have they no faith. They definitely have no fear of the Lord..
Sharon Balloch there’s a difference between pneuma and phantasma, and the kjv grossly misinterpreted and thus mistranslated it. The kjv also intentionally mistranslated Passover into easter fearing the wrath of the king and the catholics.
No. I once had a Latin Vulgate. It read that rays of light in the forms of horns arose from Moses' head instead of the accurate saying how his face shown as light. It also constantly replaces the word "repentance" to "penance". An obvious bias towards Catholic theology that arose a few centuries after Christ, but that's what you expect from a Catholic "saint".
Codex vaticanus and the latin vulgate and 6 Greek texts with many revisions based the TR, and the work of the kjv were done by anglicans and catholics, overseen heavily by king James himself. If he didn’t like the work, it was done over.
the King James version is not a good one because it uses the wrong translation of "hell" from "shoel". do some research on shoel. Too many people think the KJB is the best, but I don't think so. THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES DON'T USE THE WORD HELL. THE KING JAMES BIBLE DOES. HORRIBLE TRANSLATION. NOBODY'S GOING TO HELL.
Did you just say no ones going to hell my friend there is people going to hell hell is enlarging itself day by day the bible says . If you dont believe in a literal hell my friend you dont believe in the bible for Hell is prepared for the thr devil and his Angel's.. trust God not man
There are many translations, so my advice is to start a collection lol then with the different translations you can compare the Bibles, and the knowledge you will gain will expand! At the end of the day it is our relationship with God that will matter, sometimes NLT will explain things better than NIV, or ESV to NKJV and so forth. I only pray that whatever I read, brings me closer to God through Jesus
Brandon McCallum I own about 60 bibles, some not even published in over40 plus years. I do exactly what you recommended!😊😊 three bibles I definitely do not trust, the NWT by the JW, the Bible put out by the Mormons with Joseph Smith’s translation and the Message!! But I use many at a time to help me understand. I love the KJ NASB, AMPLIFIED, NKJ, 😊😊
Yep.. I read through the bible three times a year and read through I use a different translation..
Personally, I like the Hollman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). But I also believe that God can speak to us through any means he chooses....so any version is okay as long as it speaks to you. Exception are those that clearly alter the text to change its meaning such as the Queen James Version where verses against homosexuality are blatantly eliminated or altered to change their meaning/message.
You chose?
Audie Perkins the message, passion, and new world so-called “translations” are not.
Nonsense.
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
{Leviticus 18:22 KJV}
Thanks for your comments. I miss your radio broadcasts here in Texas. In 1964 my ship's homeport was Apra Harbor, Guam and the local radio station carried your broadcasts in the evening.
The New King James Version has used Passover and corrected the error of Easter.
I thoroughly enjoy the 1599 Geneva Bible. It was published 12 years before the JKV. The notes also do not promote the heretical ideas of Darby like dispensationalism, futurism, and the rapture doctrine.
Rapture doctrine is not false doctrine.
Its clearly in the Bible if you studied the endtimes.
The word Rapture is not used in the Bible.
But its teaching is there. There is verses that prove it.
@@Johnkoth the second coming of Jesus Christ & the resurrection of the living & the dead, Yes, but not a pretrib rapture, that is read into the text w/ eisegesis
@@Johnkoth Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, modern Dispensational Theology falls apart, and the pretrib removal of the Church falls with it.
@@Johnkoth
⚠️The pre-tribulation rapture is counter reformation false theology spawned from the pen of Francisco Ribera; Jesuit monk, circa 1585 A.D.
And the strange bedfellow of this false teaching is the seven year tribulation.
A so called gap in the 70 weeks.
@@Johnkoth WRONG...
I just can’t wait till the new version comes out !
That was excellent! Thank you so much!
In no particular order here are my favorites:
1. NKJV
(my favorite all-around Bible to study from since it consistently provides footnotes regarding the other manuscript readings and variations, plus I love how it capitalizes pronouns referring to Deity).
2. ESV
(My favorite Bible to teach from since it blends the best of both worlds of formal equivalence and readability, plus I like the underlying Greek text it utilizes).
3. HCSB/CSB
(Just an overall solid translation and a great alternative to the NIV in case the gender neutral controversy is too much for one to handle, however there are some things I wish were unchanged in the CSB from the HCSB but more about that later if anyone is interested)
4. NASB
(In my opinion it's very similar to the NKJV but I think the NASB does a better job with the Greek verb tenses in many places like the HCSB/CSB. A great example of this is the NASB's rendering of Romans 8:13-14).
5. NIV
(I know the NIV has received its share of criticism (and some of it for good reason) but I still consider this translation one of the best especially in the Old Testament. The way it renders the Hebrew as far as drawing out its meaning in many places is pretty solid.)
Of the ones you mentioned, my favorite is the NKJV.
My favourites are the AV because of its accuracy and impact and the NKJV for the like reasons. The manuscript base, of both, is rooted in the best and most numerous manuscripts, but I also use other versions, too, because at times they can be better at putting a point across even though, generally, they are less reliable in my view.
MWJ '90 I don’t think there’s questions about the Deity of Christ or to Whom the text speaks of in the Njkv as is in the kjv, and there’s no catholic bias in Acts 12, nor gross mistranslation of pneuma.
MWJ '90
NASB HCSB ESV NKJV are my favorites.
@@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786 same here. Those are the 4 I constantly rely on. As stated earlier there are some things I wish were retained in the CSB from the HCSB.
Ezekiel 33:32 And, lo, thou (AV) art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but they do them not.
Hi. Please can you throw more light on "discovery of ancient manuscripts" which shed more light...? Does this refer to the same original manuscripts that Acts for example was translated from?
@arinzeegbuna8356 •See this article "How do the Dead Sea Scrolls buttress God’s preservation of Scripture? (S-I-G-N-S)" > www.equip.org/bible_answers/how-do-the-dead-sea-scrolls-buttress-gods-preservation-of-scripture-s-i-g-n-s/
I only read the King James Bible now. It is the only one I want to read even. I truly believe it is the perfect Word of God!
English being my
second language, I read the KJV decades ago as a teen
and understood it just fine.
The language in the Four Gospels is simply incomparable.
To grasp general concepts
and histories
when actually sharing the
Good News with others, however,
I've taken everywhere from Kenneth Taylor,
to the Good News Bible,
to even children's bibles. lol
But for personal study
and devotion,
it's always the King James.
Along with Strong's and Wuest's for word studies.
Aramaic into English ones
and Young's Literal Translation
are interesting too,
but I don't see them in 'christian' bookshops.
Even the KJV is rarely
stocked these days.
@@billy_mandalay. amazingly enough. The dollar tree and 99cents store ONLY stock the KJV. And its $1. That should speak volumes to the world.
All the others are reproductions by groups of people who wanted to take advantage of a popular commercial industry and had no regard for God's Word. They're all copyrighted and can't be quoted or reproduced without permission.
Kjv is only copyrighted by the Crown in UK so that nobody can change the text and continue to call it a KJV.
The KJV has to be one of the worst translations
Amen brother
@@FredMartinez4337 that's a lie I speak Hebrew and it's actually the best trasbalrion I've seen so far objectively I'm not sure about the NT because I don't know Greek but every Greek speaker I've spoken to has told me it's accurate for the Greek too
Some of you reading this comment believe that no translation can be inspired. Did Jesus quote from a BC Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew old testament as some of you assert? Was the Septuagint a perfect translation?
Delia Rodriquez definitely a touchstone for the faith
The Septuagint is authoritative.
The greek septuagint was translated by descendants of 12 tribes of israel, and was commissioned by the King Ptolemy that was inspired by God through the Holy Spirit. Thats why the translation was PERFECTLY IDENTICAL and AUTHORITATIVE.
Get one or more Bible apps, try different translations. I like the Tecarta app personally. I use e-sword when using a PC. I would study the textual differences between the Majority and Minority texts, get all the info you can, it will help you determine what your ultimate translation philosophy will be.
A compass is not just a magnetic direction finding device, but also a device used for drawing circles around a single point. How do we know he didn't draw a compass which was one of those devices meant for drawing a circle?
I love the nkjv and the nlt.
Totally agree with you on the NKJV. I think that translation is grossly underrated. My other favorites are the ESV and the NASB. HCSB (now CSB) are also pretty solid translations.
Of the 2 you mentioned, I would go with the NKJV.
@@eternalhalloween1 the NKJV is my personal favorite for close detailed study. I think it's the most consistent when it comes to documenting textual variations (especially in the New Testament) which I find to be very helpful. Plus I personally like the way it capitalizes pronouns when referring to Deity. The NASB and HCSB does the same thing, but the NKJV is my personal favorite out of the three.
@@mwj9080 I have respect for the NASB and HCSB. And i certainly respect the NKJV. We could debate endlessly. I will say the version I probably use the most is the "Revised Standard." And the only ones I really don't like are the NIV and the NRSV. It's complicated why I don't like the NIV. And you can probably guess I do NOT like the obnoxious overly gender inclusive language in the NRSV.
@@eternalhalloween1 No I agree with the majority of your statement. Thank you for sharing! I love getting into this. I do want to ask, what are your thoughts on the NIV?
Does he read ancient Greek? If not, how can he assess the accuracy of English translations? He never addresses this in his answer.
chel3SEY New Testament is not in Ancient Greek but in Hellinistic which is about the same we speek in Greece today.
I'll bet it's the Orthodox Bible now.
cuinn837 Except there is no official English translation of The Bible for the Orthodox. I suppose in the sense that all Bibles are the product of the compilation work of the Orthodox Church we ALL use Orthodox Bibles.
William McGuire lol true
William McGuire orthodox study bible... Google it. Might not be for you but I just ordered one
lol
and that’s byzantine text which goes against everything he said here about the manuscript issue.
The vast majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts which have been discovered since 1611 agree with and support the kind of text which underlies the King James Authorised Version/New King James Version. Many modern versions mistakenly use a very small number of Greek manuscripts which disagree with themselves a great deal, and with the vast majority of extant manuscripts discovered since 1611.
Is the NLT reliable? Thanks!
I can't answer for Mr. Hanegraaff but if I may share my insights, yes, it's reliable. But still, I'd recommend you to have another "more literal" translation like the KJV (but I'm not a KJV only person), ESV, or NASB. It's for comparing verses; comparing how verses are rendered is helpful for thinking :-)
No!
It depends on what verse you are looking at.
Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me (AV) with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
The NLT Bible is Gods Holy Word
Phoenix832 of course it is...just as any good translation is God's Word! :)
Nonsense!
So you dodged the question? Sounded like a politician.
It depends on whether you are looking for the most accurate text, a user friendly version, or a version with good footnotes. I suggest the "Revised Standard" for accuracy, the "Good News" for something user friendly, and the "Jerusalem" for study notes.
The RSV? No thank you.
Learn Greek.
No thank you.
Sooner or later, I will be in the process of making a presentation by the the title of: Usurping The Almighty's All Authority: Uncovering The Insidious Agenda To Subvert The Authority of The Holy Scripture
Psalms 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
I'll say it right off the bat that I am King James only for as long as English is my primary language until God the Saviour calls me home to heaven; even though I'd preferably not make it "The main thing."
One thing I would like to point out related to the topic of subjectivism & relativism; something that I've personally told myself & eventually said to other fellow Christians is this: Because quite sadly: it is almost because of the newer Alexandrian-Text based translations of the Bible: That the very definition of what the word of God even is(in the sense that it is perceived by most people - but sadly even, by most Christians): has become so subjective if not outright relativistic. And this whole idea that no specific translation is or can be inspired: really comes from when any sense of value in truth of the word of God is lowered. In a sense: The Bible(in referring to the 1611 Scriptures): is not only merely written as beautiful poetry: but in many other ways as well is primarily written almost like a legal document. And this is done for a very real & valid reason. In the very real sense the Scriptures utilizes certain & specific choice of words, terms & phrases for a very good, valid & legitimate reason. From what I see: is that our Advesary has gone to so much effort to simply discredit the word of God. Whether it is has been through kooks & coons & various & differing cults that have misused & abused the word of God to their own advantage.
Of course, it does go without saying that the falling away from the soundness of faith & from being grounded in the Gospel of grace has for the most part existed since the New Testament Body of Christ started. But on the other hand: Look at the rapid incline of spiritual deteariation of the mainstream American church or the Body of Christ as a whole that has just happened in the last 50 to 65 years. For a good span of well over a few hundred years up until this contemporary period: Most of what the churches ever heard from - if not most of all they ever even had: Was none other than the Authorized Scriptures.
I am not saying that the newer translations are soley responsible for this. But what I am saying is this in relation to the falling away from being in the soundness of faith: that it could be argued that a great multitude of well over 100 if not around 200 different translations that are in varounce with one another that have been used to discredit of what the Bible stands for or what it even is - is most certainly one of the main contributing factors. And that is when we as Christians remove one final Authority pertaining to one Book. And yet when we add to, remove, if not outright single-out that one Authority: we become our own authority in the context of preferring & picking-out whichever subjective & newer translation it may be.
Let me state this also: This is not at all about Peter Ruckman; this is not about Gregory Miller; and this is definitely not at all about nit-picky kooks such as Bryan Denlinger.
And another truth be told: Neither should this definitely at all be about James White. And definitely should this be at all about Mr. Hanagraph who calls himself THE "Bible answer man". When in reality is just one of God's positions.
Shield of Faith & Biblical Reasoning & Discernment Hmm, maybe this is all about Sam Gipp, or Kent Hovind, or Gail Riplinger?
ESV
Only Eugene Peterson's "the message" is as bad as the paraphrase known as the king James version
How about you people that believe in the absolutely inaccurate Bible of any translation go read direct translations from the Aramaic, source scrolls. You will be amazed what is NOT in the original writings and what is...a far cry from what you assume is in the "inerrant" and "perfect" Bible you blindly accept today. Read the originals...what you believe based on translations is so off from the real thing.
How about you tell us more about these "Aramaic, source scrolls” and exactly what you've learned from them. I would love to hear what you have to say about these "original writings”. Especially since we apparently shouldn’t trust translations of the Bible unless they come from these original Aramaic source scrolls. You mention how we should read the “original writings”, these “Aramaic, source scrolls”, because what we believe is “so off from the real thing”. Given the diversity of Christian belief, you must have really done your homework to make that claim. These original Aramaic source scrolls must really do damage to theological beliefs about biblical inerrancy. So much for the abundance of biblical Hebrew and Greek sources available for critical scholarly review. We should just rely on what is available to us in the ‘original Aramaic scroll sources’. As you tell us to, “read the originals”, I expect that you have done the same. Maybe you could tell us where these alleged original Aramaic scrolls are stored so that we can examine them for ourselves too. Hey, since you brought it up, maybe you can answer a question: What of our biblical beliefs have been so lost in translation from the original Aramaic source scrolls that we are so far off today? You simply must inform us what you’ve learned from your study of these original Aramaic source scrolls, or their "direct translations", in contrast to the diversity of Christian belief. It's fair to say that I think you’d be amazed at what’s not in the Aramaic "source scrolls" you call, “the original writings”.
Collin Keen
To denigrate the accepted historian technique of study using source materials as a prime source is rather misguded.
Studying the progression of source materials, vis a vis other, later source materials and tracking changes and/or similarities is a fascinating thing in and of itself, but is a standard technique of scholars. no need to denigrate this. Comparing materials determined to be authentic is not in any way a radical way of study, rather it is vital to the understanding of ancient materials, religious or not.
Volumes and innumerable thesis have been written on Christian development, the changing of the original message 1) through time, 2) through scribal mistake, 3) through intention, whether for secular political reasons or for political/theological reasons (Church doctrinal shifts via counsels---which are often rooted in secular pressures, but not necessarily, by definition), 4) intentional scribal re-wording, 5) mistranslations that developed by translation from one language to another (King James is LOVELY as a work but is not a word for word - by a FAR stretch - translation of original Bible sources, for example) 6), social misinterpretations and inclusions of regional understandings, cultural filters and biases as well as traditional elements specific to the region where translation/scholarship took place, etc.
To review all of this body of work is hardly a thing that can be condensed in a UA-cam chat room. however, I suggest tow things...get a few books, namely "The Bible, a Biography" by Karen Armstrong, "The Great transformation" by the same author, "The Nag Hammadi Library" is an interesting read, and pulls from direct translation of prime source Aramaic scrolls (by James Robinson), "The Old Testament"-I can get you the authors name, not on my tongue...this is wonderful as it goes to the earliest, authenticated (mostly Aramaic or Aramaic dialects) scrolls so you can literally read the earliest know, relatively complete body of writings that ARE the original, Old Testament Bible. Search UA-cam for lectures by Bart Ehrman, a one-time fundamentalist and now head of Religious Studies at UNC Chapel Hill, NC. he has many lectures and writings on the development of the Bible, the mistranslations of the Bible, the importance of prime sources in accurate understanding of the thought and religion that was present during the time of Jesus and how shifts in theology happened over time. He discusses specifically how the "lessons" of Jesus/Christianity have changed over time, directly relating to your query of "what has been learned" by studying prime sources, shift-causation, and the views/theology that was not a part of Jesus's teachings and how these claims/inclusions/beliefs/elements came to be considered sacrosanct bedrocks of Christian theology. Invaluable. I highly suggest you look int that.
I must go now-Christmas prep need d! but glad to continue this discussion. please cut down any questions you may have, r topics you wish to discuss so they can be taken one by me. As mentioned, a UA-cam chat is not really the place to write dissertations! So concision would be appreciated in any query. If I do not know an answer I will say so. if I do, concision on both our parts is likely the best way to go with such a massive theological/scientific/historical/epistemological subject.
Thank you-
LilSweet Peaches Merry Christmas (eve), Peaches! Thanks in advance for the discussion! I like your thoughts on length! Great idea. You reply was 548 words, my following response is only 514 (not including this opening). I’ll limit my responses to around whatever length you write. Fair enough? Here I go:
When you say that it’s misguided to denigrate the accepted technique of study using source materials as a prime source, I completely agree. It’s ironic that you would make that statement since that is precisely what you are doing because there are no original Aramaic source scrolls from which the Bible is translated. But, my criticism is not against linguistic, textual critical, or other relevant approaches. And, you’re right, “Comparing materials determined to be authentic […] is vital to the understanding of ancient materials”. The problem is there are no such authenticated original Aramaic source scrolls from which the Bible has been translated for us to compare directly because they don’t exist.
It’s ironic, you refer to Karen Armstrong and Bart Ehrman (and the 2nd and 3rd centuries Egyptian Gnostic Nag Hammadi-the preface of the book you refer to calls them “papyrus codices” or “bound books, not scrolls”). In a book you suggest, “The Bible: A Biography”, a book you suggest, Armstrong refers to Koine Greek as the “Original language” in which the Bible was written (166-167). And Ehrman says his view that “We do not have the originals of the New Testament. Period” is “the view held by a very wide range Bible scholars” in his opening statements against Dan Wallace on the topic, “Is the original New Testament Lost”. And at 26:39 Bart Ehrman says, “the New Testament was originally written in Greek”.
Because of the way you worded it, I’m unsure if you're saying the Nag Hammadi itself makes up “the original Old Testament Bible”, only parts of it, of if “the original Old testament Bible” is translated from Aramaic. None of those claims are correct anyway. Nag Hammadi is primarily 2nd-3rd century Egyptian Gnostic collection, the Bible isn’t translated from it. And, the Old Testament was originally translated in Hebrew then later translated as the Greek Septuagint even though the Targum (which is an Aramaic paraphrase translation of the Old Testament Hebrew) was used in synagogues (refer to p. 48 of the book you suggest by Karen Armstrong, “The Bible: A Biography”). Scholars agree that “the originals” were written in Hebrew and Greek (even if translated from Aramaic oral traditions) not Aramaic, and that there are no original (autograph) Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek texts of the Bible today (only about 271 verses in the Old Testament are translated from Aramaic). To speak of “the originals”, or “the original writings” in the way you do makes no sense. It’s even more strange to speak of “Aramaic, source scrolls” from which the Bible was translated-the Bible isn’t translated from Aramaic sources.
You’re saying our beliefs are “so far off from the real thing” because of contemporary translations so we should “read the originals” or “direct translations from the Aramaic, source scrolls” which you consider to be the “original writings”. The scholars you point me to disagree with you. Check to you. My question remains, “What of our biblical beliefs have been so lost in translation from the original Aramaic source scrolls that we are so far off today?”
Great comments...and I can clarify...it is 1:44 AM Christmas Day here...I will be back, maybe in a few, as I have a few things to do...and if not, will definitely pick this up with you ASAP.
I think length should be as short as possible per topic, for both of us, though. Kindly do not let your length be determined by the length of my writings. Also, please do not let me ramble and I will not let you do the same! Concision via UA-cam= good!
But quickly...what we can gather from the earliest texts...what Jesus spoke about was radically different than that which is preached today...and I am not talking about marriage to Mary Magdelene or Dan Brown stuff...but his basic premise was different. Glad you are familiar with Ehrman, Armstrong...sure you know Dominic Crossan...he goes into this at extreme length and I respect his position.
Jesus spoke Aramaic and likely some other dialects/Greek, as he was so close to other cities (Ceasaria-sp? Varies. sorry) and so it is plausible the used other languages when in the trade of contracting, building, carpentry, etc. His disciples were certainly unlearned and spoke Aramaic dialects...but they did not write the Bible. Their words were recorded later, in various dialects, some/many! in Aramaic-esp the early ones. and later where shifted and shifted and translated and shifted. The thing to puzzle out is the earliest fragments, source-"ish" documents that give the best insight to what was going on at he time-religiously and in the context of the political/military/and interpretive narrative of the messianic Jewish movement of that particular time.
Anyway...as I said...I am giving partial (and so cruddy) answers to your valid points...so let me back off and so to gladly revisit fully later.
So I must beg pardon...let us pick this up in the next day or so if I do nto get a second wind tonight. Fascinating stuff, all. I am just late and it is Christmas...I need to be with family early to cook "breffus" and do the holiday gig...you understand, I am sure.
You are very interesting to discuss things with-well read and clear in thinking. nice to meet you and happy...whatever you celebrate! Merry Christmas! I assume, but whatever-nice to e-meet you...
LilSweet Peaches I hope you had a great Christmas!
I wouldn’t disagree that what is often preached from pulpits today is radically different from what Jesus taught. But, I would disagree that what Jesus taught is radically different from what is presented in the Bible. What is often preached today may be so radically different from Jesus’ message precisely because what is so often preached today reflects a radical departure from Scripture.
As for John Dominic Crossan’s arguments, it isn’t the extreme length at which he discusses such things but the extreme nature of his position which so radically departs from Scripture which I I find concerning (what he calls the, “Cross Gospel”, the influence of “historical prophecy”, etc.). But we don’t need to debate Crossan (and the like) here.
Also, I agree with you that Jesus and his disciples spoke the local dialects of their region. But, remember when claiming that his disciples were unlearned, you are talking about more than just 12 individuals (Luke 10:1, Acts 1:15). Such a sweeping statement as you make that, “His disciples were certainly unlearned” is too broad. While some like Peter and John were perceived as uneducated (Acts 4:13), this doesn’t suggest that all of Jesus’ disciples were unlearned or even as lowly as were fishermen, carpenters, etc (i.e. Joseph of Arimathea Mark 15:43, Matthew 27:57, 19:38).
As well, the gospels don’t claim to be written by unlearned disciples. In fact, the author of the gospel according to Luke doesn’t even claim to be a witness. He claims to be recording the testimony of others (Like 1:1-4). The author of Luke may indeed be well-learned. Paul’s disciple, Luke, is recorded as being a physician (Colossians 4:14). It might even be that other disciples were quite educated. But simply because the gospels don’t explicitly claim authorship doesn’t ipso facto negate the possibility that disciples didn’t author them. Still, in their context it was common to employ the skills of an amanuensis for such a task as recording dictated information. We also find this practiced in the Bible (Jeremiah 36:4, Romans 16:22, etc.). There is historical precedence for the possibility whereby “learned” or “unlearned” disciples may have authored some books in the Bible.
Back on point, there remains no evidence to support a hypothesis which claims the Bible was originally written in Aramaic so that Hebrew and Greek texts leave us in error and lost in translation. The consensus among scholars (believers and unbelievers) maintains that the original documents were not written in Aramaic but in Hebrew and Greek. In fact, there’s some original passages that simply couldn’t have been written in Aramaic (Bart Ehrman, “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet the New Millennium, page 95). If you want to ‘puzzle anything out from the earliest fragments or source documents’, you wont find it in original Aramaic sources that don’t exist, my friend. And, unlike Crossan, Nag Hammadi, etc., the Bible is defensible and reliable.
I’ve considered the books you've suggested. Maybe you’ll consider one’s I suggest that are relevant to our discussion as well: “The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant?”, by Walter C. Kaiser Jr.; “The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?” by F.F. Bruce; “Can We Still Believe The Bible: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions” by Craig L. Blomberg. These are good and accessible books by well respected scholars.
The orthodox study bible is the best translation I have every read
I heavily disagree
Any that used the received text, (Geneva, KJV ect...) so before 1880. After that they have all been corrupted.
NASB
Just for giggles....
ESV
GARBAGE book.
ESV, CSB, NLT.
Kjv is a perfect bible
tim sturm 😂
tim sturm lol the king James translators would disagree with you. Read their preface.
That I proved that the translators did a perfect work many people didn’t realize what God was doing with him when he was working through them
Learn the BASICS of Hebrew and Greek and you will see the KJV is NOT perfect.
Most lay people do NOT have access to the original manuscripts; nor can they read them. One simple system I have developed is to consider 3 broad categories concerning Bible translations. Here are the three questions I ask the translators, seminar graduates, etc.: 1. What did they write down, 2. What were their private writings, and 3. What did they do and what organizations did they join? The KJV came from the original texts: Masoretic and the Textus Receptus. There were 56 translators who took 7 years to translate and cross-validate their work. They also spent four years in prayer. This is the 1611 Bible. The NIV and NASB were translated by Westcott and Hort. Compare the two Bibles. You will find things left out and added in to the new versions, which do not correspond to the KJV. Check out what Westcott and Hort have written on their world views. They have written articles on the occult. Hort's mother advises him to come back to the old KJV. Regarding the organizations they belong to and have created: Some are the Ghostly Guild, The Erasmus Club, and the Hermes Club. They also participate in the occult and metaphysics. If one is interested in a Bible in which the creators are interested in metaphysics and occultism, I guess the "newer more modern versions", take the cake. Please check out Gail Riplinger's book "The New Age Bible Versions. She kind of lays it out for people. She had done her research, too. In closing, most theologians use the arguments on the various Bible translations to steer people away from the KJV. You are not going to win with that. Ask yourself, which Bible version is being criticized the most? Check it out. The true word of God is narrow, and few will find it. Thanks for listening.
Deborah Cook wescott and hort had nothing to do with later translations. This is a washed up theory.
Bible Answer Man: I used to listen to you all of the time. Now, thank you for correcting me on Westcott and Hort. I am checking the book, "New Age Bible Versions" by Gail Riplinger. On page 616 she states that W and H created the underlying Greek texts for the new versions. Permit me to say a few words before I leave. I want to talk to your audience. Thank you for your time. Here goes. Just as Hank Hanegraaff has done his research on Bible versions; we, as laity must do ours, also. The Bible version issue is important, because it could determine our eternal destiny. I have chosen to do my own research based on some principles and information.. Gail Riplinger's book, "New Age Bible Versions is a very good start. It is comprehensive and she has a very extensive bibliography. Please check out the following websites: Bryan Denlinger KJVM; Chuck Missler's material, and also Mike Hoggard's material on his discussions. Realize this is a time of great deception. You must also know that the Bible version(s) must meat the following criteria as in the Bible: The Word of God is Truth; The Word of God is Pure; The Word of God is eternal. With these thoughts taken in mind, please feel free to do your own research, to search out the scriptures (KJV) on your own, and always question those in the clergy as they could be mistaken or have a different opinion on this issue. Keep in mind, there is a controversy on this subject. Both sides are using the same manuscripts, but arriving at different conclusions. Be proactive and settle this important issue in your own heart. There is a lot of information out there online. Take responsibility. Trust that Jesus must be glorified. Thank you and God bless.
ok
KJV has no errors has no errors has no errors
Not true at all, it's just that KJV only cultists refuse to acknowledge the errors.
tim sturm great gaping fish is translated whale, spirit pneuma is translated phantom phantasma and Passover is translated easter.. the kjv waters down Christ’s Deity, and confuses Whom the text speaks of in places... yet “no errors”???
tim sturm the kjv translators as well would not agree with you kjv onlyists, go read their preface. And with kjv version??? There are many, and each differs from each other in places, and from the kjv 1611, and from the tr also.
It actually has several errors in it. The KJV isn’t perfect and never was
Genesis 1:1, Deut. 6:4, Job 2:9, Ps. 23:6, Mark 1:19, John 3:16, Acts 12:4, Acts 16:38, 2 Peter 2:4, 1 John 2:2, Rev. 6:8, Rev. 10:1, and other verses show that you are WRONG.
Well since copy right is needed for all the new bibles they all must change ...much taken out .. much put in..so a whale becomes a giant sea creature.. to add words.. but its the words taken out that bother me because God says every Word is pure..so only one can be the truth and the others not.. so if your bible does not know David killed Goliath..but says (2 Sam. 21:19) Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite or if Jesus has now become the one and only son of God instead of the Only begotten Son of God.. only one of these are true.. the one and only is wrong because the same bible also tells us that Adam was the son of God and we are the sons and daughters of God.. Here is an example of words taken out.. Those who are angry at their brother are in fear of Judgement..which make Jesus a sinner if fear of judgement.. but we know Jesus was not a sinner.. so this must be wrong.. they took out only three words.. if you are angry for no reason.. They deleted these verses entirely Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14
Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17
John 5:4 Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:28
Romans 16:24
1 John 5:7!
So you can all read what ever you like but remembered how many people in the past died to get the WORD into your hands...starting with the disciples of Christ.. are you sure you have it..and those new books.. who dares to remove the words of the Lord? Did they not read the last page of the bible..? Have they no faith. They definitely have no fear of the Lord..
Sharon Balloch whale is a wrong translation. In the Greek its a great gaping fish, not a whale that’s a mammal. I suspect it to be a whale shark.
Sharon Balloch the NASB keeps the phrase “Only Begotten.”
Sharon Balloch there’s a difference between pneuma and phantasma, and the kjv grossly misinterpreted and thus mistranslated it. The kjv also intentionally mistranslated Passover into easter fearing the wrath of the king and the catholics.
Sharon Balloch there are many many places where the kjv confuses Whom the text talks about, and in many places waters down the Deity of Jesus Christ.
KJV of 1611....and no other....
The KJV of 1611 hasn’t been printed in over a century. The KJV we have today is the 1769 revision
So you have faith in "Iefvf."?
KJV has no errors.
Do you think it has no errors after it's fifty one revisions or are you just stupid?
The Latin translation by St Hieronymus, the Vulgate, is of course the best ever.
Can you read Latin though? If not, you'd be reading a twice-over translation, and that is not ideal if you ask me.
No. I once had a Latin Vulgate. It read that rays of light in the forms of horns arose from Moses' head instead of the accurate saying how his face shown as light.
It also constantly replaces the word "repentance" to "penance". An obvious bias towards Catholic theology that arose a few centuries after Christ, but that's what you expect from a Catholic "saint".
Codex vaticanus and the latin vulgate and 6 Greek texts with many revisions based the TR, and the work of the kjv were done by anglicans and catholics, overseen heavily by king James himself. If he didn’t like the work, it was done over.
At any rate, the kjv translators would not agree with kjv onlyism, just read their preface.
Obi-Wan Kenobi these days, it’d be, the face of Moses shone, reflecting off God’s Glory.
the King James version is not a good one because it uses the wrong translation of "hell" from "shoel". do some research on shoel. Too many people think the KJB is the best, but I don't think so. THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES DON'T USE THE WORD HELL. THE KING JAMES BIBLE DOES. HORRIBLE TRANSLATION. NOBODY'S GOING TO HELL.
that's the English translation for Sheol and Hades
that sounds like a theological bias rather than textual linguistic evidence.
Casey Jeter in new king james bible all this problem is gone.and use the world of hades or shoel
King James was homosexual masonic evil. So is his gay's bible.
Did you just say no ones going to hell my friend there is people going to hell hell is enlarging itself day by day the bible says . If you dont believe in a literal hell my friend you dont believe in the bible for Hell is prepared for the thr devil and his Angel's.. trust God not man
ESV
KJV has no errors.