Bible Coruption.

[Oberon]

What bible version do you recommend?

Well, whenever I am studying a passage I will go to the original, and when it comes to the NT I can pretty much just read the greek. I would probably just compare a couple of versions. And again, I would recommend a hebrew and greek lexicon to complement strongs. Find out what the original word was, and then look it up in the lexicon.

 

[IKNOWNUFFINK]

Well, whenever I am studying a passage I will go to the original, and when it comes to the NT I can pretty much just read the greek. I would probably just compare a couple of versions. And again, I would recommend a hebrew and greek lexicon to complement strongs. Find out what the original word was, and then look it up in the lexicon.

Okay cool, that said, what is your preferred english version or do you read the scripture in greek and hebrew.

Also what are the new findings after the KJV was written. Two people have said this, where is the proof. I would like to know what is being referred to here please.

 

[Oberon]

Okay cool, that said, what is your preferred english version or do you read the scripture in greek and hebrew.

Also what are the new findings after the KJV was written. Two people have said this, where is the proof. I would like to know what is being referred ing to here please.

The bible I typically pull from the shelf is the Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha (1965), which uses the RSV.

As for your second question, I would highly recommend The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by B. M. Metzger and B. D. Ehrman. In brief, our best manuscript is generally considered to be the Codex Sinaiticus, which wasn't discovered until the 19th century. All of the best papyri (including p52, the earlist extant gospel fragment) were discovered after the KJV. In fact, the KJV translators relied heavily on the Textus Receptus for the Greek text, which was based on only a few, and not the best, manuscripts.

Finally there is the issue of language change and a better understanding of the original languages. Again, my knowledge of Hebrew isn't good enough to comment authoritatively here, but the most important scholarhip in the Greek language, as well as the best grammars and lexicons (in various modern languages, but especially German) were written in the 19th and 20th centuries. Also, many words which might be translated accurately enough into the early modern english of the KJV (e.g. the verb "will") have changed in current english.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The bible I typically pull from the shelf is the Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha (1965), which uses the RSV.

As for your second question, I would highly recommend The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by B. M. Metzger and B. D. Ehrman. In brief, our best manuscript is generally considered to be the Codex Sinaiticus, which wasn't discovered until the 19th century. All of the best papyri (including p52, the earlist extant gospel fragment) were discovered after the KJV. In fact, the KJV translators relied heavily on the Textus Receptus for the Greek text, which was based on only a few, and not the best, manuscripts.

Finally there is the issue of language change and a better understanding of the original languages. Again, my knowledge of Hebrew isn't good enough to comment authoritatively here, but the most important scholarhip in the Greek language, as well as the best grammars and lexicons (in various modern languages, but especially German) were written in the 19th and 20th centuries. Also, many words which might be translated accurately enough into the early modern english of the KJV (e.g. the verb "will") have changed in current english.

Good stories about how this and other codices became available to the scholarly world.

 

[IKNOWNUFFINK]

I'm not an expert in Hebrew, sorry. I used what my university had, and I used my various textbooks when I had to read Hebrew for research. I can probably find out for you though.

Yes thanks, if you get a chance please do.

 

[Oberon]

Good stories about how this and other codices became available to the scholarly world.

Yes, Tischendof's happening upon papers meant for the fire is fascinating. And it doesn't even beat the nag hammadi (which, if memory serves, was given up by a murderer looking for leniency) story. There are certainly some interesting discovery stories out there.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes thanks, if you get a chance please do.

If you have the cash, BibleWorks is a great program for someone who wants to go a little deeper but doesn't have the time to learn Greek and Hebrew. It's excellent.

 

[Oberon]

Yes thanks, if you get a chance please do.

My university stocked the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, and it is pretty good. It is certainly more than adequate for any college student studying biblical hebrew, or for someone who wishes to look up words found in the OT.

EDIT: I don't know anything about bibleworks, but I would certainly trust angellous' advice.

 

[IKNOWNUFFINK]

The bible I typically pull from the shelf is the Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha (1965), which uses the RSV.

As for your second question, I would highly recommend The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by B. M. Metzger and B. D. Ehrman. In brief, our best manuscript is generally considered to be the Codex Sinaiticus, which wasn't discovered until the 19th century. All of the best papyri (including p52, the earlist extant gospel fragment) were discovered after the KJV. In fact, the KJV translators relied heavily on the Textus Receptus for the Greek text, which was based on only a few, and not the best, manuscripts.

Finally there is the issue of language change and a better understanding of the original languages. Again, my knowledge of Hebrew isn't good enough to comment authoritatively here, but the most important scholarhip in the Greek language, as well as the best grammars and lexicons (in various modern languages, but especially German) were written in the 19th and 20th centuries. Also, many words which might be translated accurately enough into the early modern english of the KJV (e.g. the verb "will") have changed in current english.

Thanks for that info - much appreciated. Although the RSV looks to be one of the usual supsects pointed out in the OP. My thought is that if all these so called new improved versions have been formulated as a result of the "later discovered manuscripts", I may well easily conclude that they are suspect.

If you make a genuine honest comparison of KJV and the bibles mentioned in the RSV, the author of the document has a very valid point. These changes are not a matter of semantics, they are matter of entirely changed and perverted meanings. Meanings that are fundamnetal to the pure gospel message - if in fact there is even such a thing as that. Perhaps it is actaully al big myth.

I mean to say, if the KJV is the one that is corrupt and all the "new versions" are actually more accuarte, it would do more to lead me into the Church of "Mostly Agnostic" and or back on the bingo bus than anything else I have discovered in the last we while.

This looks like it might be a good read.

The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by B. M. Metzger and B. D. Ehrman




But this book looks like its worth getting. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by B. M. Metzger and B. D. Ehrman

 

[Oberon]

If you make a genuine honest comparison of KJV and the bibles mentioned in the RSV, the author of the document has a very valid point. These changes are not a matter of semantics, they are matter of entirely changed and perverted meanings.

I've come across these types of arguments before, and they are almost always wrongs. Just skimming through the OP, I found a few important errors, which I will repeat below:

They make Lucifer and Jesus Christ - THE SAME!​

In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ." The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The new per-versions change "Lucifer" to "morning star". According to Revelation 22:16, the "morning star" is the Lord Jesus Christ! What blasphemy! What perversion! And there's no basis whatsoever for the change! The Hebrew word for star (kokab) is not even found in Isaiah 14:12! Is there any doubt who is the "daddy" of these new versions?

The hebrew word for the morning star, however, is. To quote myself ​

In the old testament up until around the time of Jesus, there was no supremely evil being, and satan (stn-שָׂטַן) was more or less an angelic office. The only reference to Lucifer in the Old Testament is Isiah 14:12 (the passage is probably refering to Nebuchadnezzer) where the word is day star (Hebrew Helal). When tranlated into Latin (in the vulgate), the line reads "Quomodo cecidifti de caelo lucifer" lucifer meaning roughly "light-bearer." Lucifer was the Roman "morning star" and corresponded fairly well to Helal, hence the translation.

Many times when the new versions come to the obvious word "hell" - they replace it with the Greek word "Hades" or Hebrew "Sheol"!

Which makes it more accurate, as the original greek and hebrew words do not carry the same meaning as the english "hell."​

That's true. We don't have the originals. But neither did the KJV translators. We do, however, have earlier and better manuscripts than they had, and far more of them, from which to reconstruct as best as possible the original text.​

There is simply so much wrong in what you quoted.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I find it hard to believe that some one who claims to have a PHD in New Testament Bible studies is so vitriolic about this information.

I believe the people you "preach" to on a Sunday morning would be exceedingly interested to know that you think "God died for Gods sins", and that the bible is just a collection of myths.

I would far rather know these credentials than what letters anyone has after their name.

I don't take well to dishonesty.

You seem preoccupied with my ordination and credentials. See my website for my background. If you have any questions about them, send me a PM or ask me a question on my thread in the "Know your moderator" forum.

 

[IKNOWNUFFINK]

I've come across these types of arguments before, and they are almost always wrongs. Just skimming through the OP, I found a few important errors, which I will repeat below:



There is simply so much wrong in what you quoted.

Well not being privaledged with knowing the Original Greek and Hebrew language and just being a common peasant lucky enough to have the KJV to compare with the said other versions, there is in actual fact nothing wrong with the quotes I have posted. It is 100% correct because I have done the comparison scripture for scripture.

Now that said, you guys are opening up another door for me and that is the possibility that the KJV is corrupt/inacurate aswell, well alrighty then, that may well be the case, but that's a whole other thread topic is it not?

DO us all a favour and put together the facts (on another thread) like I have done here, and we can all have a look at it a pour scorn on it together.

May the God that may or may not exist bless you.

PS It may or may not be possible for you to appreciate a poor un-educated paddy from the boggs like me holding on to the deluded idea that God promised to PRESERVE his word - and that in my extreme naievity that He may have gone as far as to do that in English aswell.

It is clear that you are "moslty agnostic" what ever that means and the other acadmeic PHD "christian" has already concluded that the bible is not inerrent.

I haven't concluded anything of the sort yet nor am I agnostic. I beliove in the God of the bible and your telling me ther is no such book. And you will need to come up with some evidence and post it clealry to prove it because I am not about to embark on a joruney of 8 to ten years study to find it - you blokes have already done that - so throw together an easy to understand and read treatise that proves to the great unwashed that the bible is a myth or else stop dreaming in broad day light for all the world to see. Or at the very least refrain from calling your self a christian.

 

[te_lanus]

hi here is a few questions to think about

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.
What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.
Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
[/FONT][FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the [FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Textus Receptus[/FONT] disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)
Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?
[/FONT]

 

[Kathryn]

Here's another question:

What about the poor sods who don't speak English and have to read the bible in, say, Swahili or even (gasp) FRENCH? Are they just outta luck?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

PS It may or may not be possible for you to appreciate a poor un-educated paddy from the boggs like me holding on to the deluded idea that God promised to PRESERVE his word - and that in my extreme naievity that He may have gone as far as to do that in English aswell.

It is clear that you are "moslty agnostic" what ever that means and the other acadmeic PHD "christian" has already concluded that the bible is not inerrent.

I haven't concluded anything of the sort yet nor am I agnostic. I beliove in the God of the bible and your telling me ther is no such book. And you will need to come up with some evidence and post it clealry to prove it because I am not about to embark on a joruney of 8 to ten years study to find it - you blokes have already done that - so throw together an easy to understand and read treatise that proves to the great unwashed that the bible is a myth or else stop dreaming in broad day light for all the world to see. Or at the very least refrain from calling your self a christian.

The Bible does not need to be inerrant or infalliable to be inspired. Any given version of the Bible [including the KJV] employs a textual theory (philosophy guiding the choice of texts to translate), a translation theory (philosophy of translation method), and both of these theories have a long history of development and change.

Then, the texts themselves have been changed throughout the ages. Scribes added and deleted words according to their incompetence or theological bias. Some textual traditions were weak (few copies) and some quite strong (many copies).

With all this stuff going on - really it's nothing short of chaos - there is no room for an inerrant or infalliable Scripture.

Scripture is suspended in error, but that doesn't mean that the word of God is communicated through it. It's like the message of the Gospel when we share it with others - it's pure and redemptive, but it is encased within our body of imprecision.

 

[Oberon]

Well not being privaledged with knowing the Original Greek and Hebrew language and just being a common peasant lucky enough to have the KJV to compare with the said other versions, there is in actual fact nothing wrong with the quotes I have posted. It is 100% correct because I have done the comparison scripture for scripture.

As you say, though, you can't read the original languages, so it is hard to make claims about where the KJV is superior or not in terms of translation. The perfect example is the translation of Lucifer vs. Morning star for the hebrew helal.

Now that said, you guys are opening up another door for me and that is the possibility that the KJV is corrupt/inacurate aswell, well alrighty then, that may well be the case, but that's a whole other thread topic is it not?

You tell me. You started this thread, but the article you quoted appears to be defending the KJV translation over all others, so it seems that examining the possibility that the KJV isn't the best translation is in line with the OP.

DO us all a favour and put together the facts (on another thread) like I have done here, and we can all have a look at it a pour scorn on it together.

Certainly I wouldn't mind addressing in-depth questions about particular places where the KJV differs and whether other translations are superior, or about the actual manuscripts used in modern translations vs. the KJV.

PS It may or may not be possible for you to appreciate a poor un-educated paddy from the boggs like me holding on to the deluded idea that God promised to PRESERVE his word

Oh I understand. And I wish I had your faith. I just don't.

It is clear that you are "moslty agnostic" what ever that means

Most agnostics I come across a borderline atheists. They often don't care much about religion at all. I, on the other hand, would very much like to believe in God or something, and study the subject constantly, but I just don't have faith.

I haven't concluded anything of the sort yet nor am I agnostic.

In all seriousness, that is a great attitutde. I'm not being sarcastic.

Or at the very least refrain from calling your self a christian.

I do.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Oh I understand. And I wish I had your faith. I just don't.... I just don't have faith.

Be careful what you wish for.

As Jesus taught - you don't need much faith at all, just the smallest glimmer and this faith acts like a seed that can produce a strong tree.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Or at the very least refrain from calling your self a christian.

He was referring to me.:angel2:

 

[Michigan Atheist]

ouch, this entire post makes my head hurt... Wow

 

[IKNOWNUFFINK]

The Bible does not need to be inerrant or infalliable to be inspired

.

If God wrote the bible it is inerrant if He didnt write it(through men as they were led by the Holy Spirit) then it's all a very well written fairy tale and I'm off down the pub to get hammered.

I am aware you are of the opinion it's a collection of myths.

Please answer this question here -It's the fourth time I have asked it now...

Do the people you "minister" to know this is what you believe, IE that the bible is a collection of myths.