Post by Brother Ben on Aug 17, 2004 23:12:38 GMT -5
Greetings in the name of My Beloved, Jesus.
I would like to make some observations about the version issue.
1. Apples and oranges. When doing a comparative study one must remember the source manuscripts from which we derive our versions. You have two basic sources the first being the, what I call, Asia Minor manuscripts. When Erasamus compiled the text for the Textus Receptus (the root manuscript for the Martin Luther Bible, The Tyndale Bible, The Geneva Bible, the KJV, as well as other tremendous manuscripts,) he examined literally thousands of documents. He had full availability to the Vaticanus from where the "new versions" come. When Wescott and Hort compiled their documents for trans. of the RV in 1881 they rejected the TR for the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Strangely the V and S manuscripts where we get the supposed superior NIV, RV, RSV, ASV, NASB, NRSV, NCV, CEV, TLB, Good News for Modern Man, and the misnomer NKJV (which is not a "new" King James at all.) The men who compiled the Wescott Hort manuscripts were destitute of Christian experience. They were members of a group called the ghostly guild that spent time trying to get in touch with departed spirits. They believe in worship of Mary and redemption of demons. NOTE: If you are a born again Catholic please don't be offended, these are just facts. The point I'm making is Drs. Wescott and Hort had allegiances to the Catholic church and used Catholic manuscripts to make the work from which ALL modern translations come. The translators of the modern version, with their scholarship, were merely slamming on the KJV because most people do not have any idea about manuscipt evidences and the ever popular, "thee's and thou's" arguement leads many astray. So it's apples and oranges, by this I mean, You cannot rightly compare a KJV with a NIV (or other versions) because they come from totally different families of manuscripts. Also, the Vaticanus and Sinaticus are "older", but they are corrupt. They differed with each other over 3000 times in just the four gospels alone.
2. Fundamental doctrinal attacks. Consider the following doctrines: The virgin birth, the sinlessness of Christ, regeneration, the blood atonement, the Trinity. Are these important or are these "B" issues that shouldn't be made a big deal out of?
Revised Version: Is. 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.
Question: How many times a day do young women conceive? How often do virgins? Remember ALL modern translations are re-translations of the RV! When the modernist translators, who got in much hot water for attacking the virgin birth which Wescott and Hort did not believe, they opted for the Textus Receptus wording "virgin." The "denominations" that represent the scholars who have done the "new translations" are plagued with modernist infidels who deny crucial funamental bible doctrines. Beware!
Revised Version: Matt. 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.
Question: Was Jesus angry when he drove the money changers out of the temple with a scourge of cords? Yes! So, was he liable to judgement? You can stand in judgement of Jesus if you'd like, I'll opt out of that one. This puts a question mark on the sinlessness of Christ.
Revised Version: Acts 8:36,37 [36] And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?"
[38] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Question: Where did verse 37 go? The scholars and their ancient manuscripts say it wasn't there. Does verse 37 teach anything important? Yes, salvation by grace through faith prior to baptism. The KJV says, And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The false teaching of baptismal regeration found its origin in the the early Catholic church. Constantine needed a quick method for making the pagan men of his army members of the church so he baptized them in! So if water puts you into Christ the sooner the better, thus infant baptism. When the babies drowned on occasions they changed the method from immersion (scriptural) to sprinkling (man-made.) Error begets error. Also, if the superior manuscripts OMIT verse 37, then why isn't verse 38 called verse 37? When thinking about OMISSIONS consider Rev. 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. This is the last admonition God makes about His word. It would be wise to heed it.
Interesting article: Why You Should Use The King James Bible
logosresourcepages.org/why_use.htm
MORE NEXT POST, Bro. Ben
I would like to make some observations about the version issue.
1. Apples and oranges. When doing a comparative study one must remember the source manuscripts from which we derive our versions. You have two basic sources the first being the, what I call, Asia Minor manuscripts. When Erasamus compiled the text for the Textus Receptus (the root manuscript for the Martin Luther Bible, The Tyndale Bible, The Geneva Bible, the KJV, as well as other tremendous manuscripts,) he examined literally thousands of documents. He had full availability to the Vaticanus from where the "new versions" come. When Wescott and Hort compiled their documents for trans. of the RV in 1881 they rejected the TR for the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Strangely the V and S manuscripts where we get the supposed superior NIV, RV, RSV, ASV, NASB, NRSV, NCV, CEV, TLB, Good News for Modern Man, and the misnomer NKJV (which is not a "new" King James at all.) The men who compiled the Wescott Hort manuscripts were destitute of Christian experience. They were members of a group called the ghostly guild that spent time trying to get in touch with departed spirits. They believe in worship of Mary and redemption of demons. NOTE: If you are a born again Catholic please don't be offended, these are just facts. The point I'm making is Drs. Wescott and Hort had allegiances to the Catholic church and used Catholic manuscripts to make the work from which ALL modern translations come. The translators of the modern version, with their scholarship, were merely slamming on the KJV because most people do not have any idea about manuscipt evidences and the ever popular, "thee's and thou's" arguement leads many astray. So it's apples and oranges, by this I mean, You cannot rightly compare a KJV with a NIV (or other versions) because they come from totally different families of manuscripts. Also, the Vaticanus and Sinaticus are "older", but they are corrupt. They differed with each other over 3000 times in just the four gospels alone.
2. Fundamental doctrinal attacks. Consider the following doctrines: The virgin birth, the sinlessness of Christ, regeneration, the blood atonement, the Trinity. Are these important or are these "B" issues that shouldn't be made a big deal out of?
Revised Version: Is. 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.
Question: How many times a day do young women conceive? How often do virgins? Remember ALL modern translations are re-translations of the RV! When the modernist translators, who got in much hot water for attacking the virgin birth which Wescott and Hort did not believe, they opted for the Textus Receptus wording "virgin." The "denominations" that represent the scholars who have done the "new translations" are plagued with modernist infidels who deny crucial funamental bible doctrines. Beware!
Revised Version: Matt. 5:22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.
Question: Was Jesus angry when he drove the money changers out of the temple with a scourge of cords? Yes! So, was he liable to judgement? You can stand in judgement of Jesus if you'd like, I'll opt out of that one. This puts a question mark on the sinlessness of Christ.
Revised Version: Acts 8:36,37 [36] And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?"
[38] And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Question: Where did verse 37 go? The scholars and their ancient manuscripts say it wasn't there. Does verse 37 teach anything important? Yes, salvation by grace through faith prior to baptism. The KJV says, And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The false teaching of baptismal regeration found its origin in the the early Catholic church. Constantine needed a quick method for making the pagan men of his army members of the church so he baptized them in! So if water puts you into Christ the sooner the better, thus infant baptism. When the babies drowned on occasions they changed the method from immersion (scriptural) to sprinkling (man-made.) Error begets error. Also, if the superior manuscripts OMIT verse 37, then why isn't verse 38 called verse 37? When thinking about OMISSIONS consider Rev. 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. This is the last admonition God makes about His word. It would be wise to heed it.
Interesting article: Why You Should Use The King James Bible
logosresourcepages.org/why_use.htm
MORE NEXT POST, Bro. Ben