bible versions

Preacher23

Preacher23

Moderator
before i start; i wish to say that i dont mean to step on anyones toes.. im not here to hurt anyone. im actualy doing more quoting and reserch.
we are called unto god in difrent ways and for difrent reasons. ultimately god reads into your hearts and knows how you feel.

ok first off a bit of a history lesson..unfourtunately im not that good at history, so ill let somone else speak for me..oh and beware you may need to have an hour and half to get the full idea..so if you dont have time come back later..

ok heres a vid: changing the word

ok now im going to give some bible verses; some have the word in it, others the wording is changed, and some are missing totaly.
im not going to write the whole scripture out but ill give evrything else and whats missing and where it is missing.
lets start with this- Revelation 22:18-19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

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.

to start out KJV has all of these texts..
Isaiah 7:14
RSV= any woman can concive jesus.
KJV= had to be born of vergin

Danial 3:25
im not shure if it was RSV or NIV but the word God was plural.. last i checked the god that took the jews from bondage was 1 god, not many.

Mark 15:28 in the RSV the whole text is missing.
Acts 22:16 the NIV= call on who's name? the pope? lucifer? yes christians know but somone reeding bible for first time could fall into a trap.

Matthew 17:21 the text is missing from both NIV and RSV as well as a few others.. KJV has it.
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 11:26
all thoes the text is gone..

if you liked that vidieo i recomend seeing all the total onslaught series.
it was seeing this series that renewed my faith in jesus.
my favorite text; i do my best to live by it..
Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them

if you want me to send you via e mail the series so you dont have to serch for it i will do that.. just leave your e mail adress here.
ill title it bible study so you know its me..
god bless.
 
Just an FYI, that verse you quoted from Revelation 22:18-19 is way out of context.

It refers only to Revelation when it talks about adding and subtracting. That verse should not be used to show some kind of seriousness about alleged missing text from Matthew and Mark. Many good commentaries show this to be the case and if you were to interpret it as to refer to all books of the bible then only Revelation would be allowed as Scripture and every other book would be adding to it.

I will look into the rest of your post, but at first glance I noticed this and wanted to respond.
 
Last edited:
Total Onslaught - Battle of the Bibles
Now that sounds like an interesting video! I'm looking forward to watching it later today.
 
Isaiah 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 (RSV).

While it is less specific than virgin, young still means "being in the first or early stage of life or growth;" and one can assume that means is still a virgin. I'll give it to you, but a little investigation and anyone can come to that conclusion, especially if Mother Mary is revered in Catholicism.



Both NIV and RSV have Daniel 3:25 say something similar to: "He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods. (NIV)" and KJV saying "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God"

Yet Nebuchadnezzar said this and Nebuchadnezzar styles himself as Nabu's (a god) “beloved” and “favourite." Therefor it would actually make more sense that he use the plural form of "god" since he comes from a Pagan background instead of a Christian "Son of God." Whether that figure is Jesus, the Son of God from the NT in the KJV or if it was just an angel sounds like sermon to me, but these difference seem trivial in the grand scheme of things.

I was going to look in depth at all of those you listed, but I don't have the time right now. And I don't doubt that we loose something when we change from a KJV type translation to a modern translation, but if we are talking strictly about new Christians reading (which you used as an argument) than I feel that more people will come to Christ through an NIV-like version than an old "archaic" KJV version. Religion has a stereotype of being very rigid and boring, having people read with "thou" and "thine" would reinforce that fact. However, once you have your foot in the door, so to speak, I feel KJV is a much better book to study and learn in-depth the word of God
 
Acts 22:16 the NIV= call on who's name? the pope? lucifer? yes christians know but somone reeding bible for first time could fall into a trap.
Click to expand...

Actually, no they couldn't. It's all about context. If someone was given a single line of scripture, I *suppose* they *might* not know who's name is being called upon. But clearly in the verses leading up to it, Paul is talking about his transformation, and repeats his conversation with Jesus. The only "his" that would fit would either be Paul, Ananias or Jesus, and it makes no sense for Ananias to use the 3rd-person pronoun in a 1st/2nd party situation (he would have used me/my and you/your)... so only Jesus is left.

Here's the recap: Paul has a conversation with Jesus, and is sent to Ananias. Paul repeats the conversation to Ananias, who tells Paul to call upon His (Jesus') name.

The structure really isn't horribly difficult to follow, and would not be a stumbling point for anyone that reads English as their primary language. If someone doesn't speak English natively, they might struggle a *little* but I think that there are far more confusing points in the Bible than that.
 
As for the verses that are missing out of the middle of text, those are usually footnoted in the NIV. The reason that many versions don't actually have them included is because there wasn't enough copies of the writings that included them...so in an effort to keep the translation as close as possible to the original work, the verses are excluded.

As for why those verses were added in the first place? It's hard to say. Maybe a transcriber added them hoping to add clarity? Maybe they were included in the original text and excluded because they didn't flow? Only God knows.
 
"As for the verses that are missing out of the middle of text, those are usually footnoted in the NIV."

see the 2 vidieo's i posted..
 
I have to admit, I'm not going to watch a 91 minute youtube video to see what point you're getting at. Please give me a basic rundown of what you want me to specifically respond to?

I believe that the footnoted "missing" verses is appropriate. There's enough evidence that they weren't in the original texts, so they've been omitted from some translations. If you wanted to talk about a larger-scale change, why do some versions include Apocrypha?
 
Hey, if it ain't The Message, I'm fine with it for the most part. :p

/uses the ESV
 
well i cant recall every fine detail; thats why i wanted to show you the vids... because they give proof and reproof. but basics are that the text the NIV and some other versions were written by wescot and hort who spasificly stated the way to change these bible beliving cristians [durring the reformation] was to slowly change the word itself.. a little here and there. when they rewrote it they chosse the spasific line of texts that left jesus out of alot of things. its also from a scroll that has been found as a "fake"
dont get me wrong; the KJV has manny mistakes as well. he explains it in the vidieo's.. anyway... i think evryone should watch these..curently i send them to freinds as a bible study. ive been bringing lives to jesus; and as cristians that is what we are to do.. as the bible says "become fishers of men"
if anyone would be interested in seeing these let me know.. i curently am sending them to tek7 and stc..i may concider doing them as a bible study if i would be alowed to.
 
I can only ask you what witness do you get internally from the Spirit as you read the Bible? Do you gain wisdom and understanding by having the Spirit open up Scripture to you?

As you may know, the Holy Spirit bears witness to Truth and if He can witness to me that I am reading Truth and that the Bible is indeed true and I gain wisdom and understanding from Him, how can He be a liar?
.
 
You claim that Hoyt and Wescot were attempting to destroy Christianity, but every reference I find to them lists them as part of the Protestant movement. Wescot was even a bishop of the church. I find it difficult to believe that a ranking member of the Church of England would intentionally do so much damage.

Hoyt actually proposed that he had access to an older original text, and therefore likely contained fewer scribal mistakes. Whether or not they were correct, only God knows. No matter which English version you read, it's based on some translation from a compilation of Greek texts. Every group that releases a translation has to take into account every text, and whether it can be deemed original. There are often conflicting papers. And it's easy to see why - there are some people that want to destroy the Bible. So malicious intent is a huge part of it.

But what about people with honorable intentions? As you and I read the Bible, we may do great amounts of research trying to unravel various verses and how they apply timelessly to us. So I quote a piece of scripture while preparing a lesson, and then try to break it down and explain it. Do I get it right 100%? Do I do justice to the complexity and the power of the original text? Perhaps not... but because of the digital age that we live in, it becomes preserved exactly as I typed it. Now you've got differing texts available for future studies. So if someone else is trying to figure out exactly what the Bible said, they might come across my interpretation and have to decide if mine was right.

To complicate the issue, English is far less precise than many other languages. Anyone that has studied a Latin-based language can explain why that language is more precise and detailed. Greek was even more complex than Latin. So as these authors attempt to convert the Bible from Greek to English, they have to mush it into a confusing mish-mash language without the ability to directly convert some words. Peter's restoration is a perfect example of this - Peter and Jesus use different words for "love", but we translate them the same because we don't have any other way to do it.

Are translations based on the works Hoyt and Wescot more or less accurate than other translations? I don't think that anyone except God truly knows that answer.
 
Excellent point Durruck. Similar circumstances occurred in the New Testamant as well. Many of the NT quotes of the OT are slightly "off" if you look up the OT reference - even in the KJV. That is because the authors were using the LXX - Septuagint - the Greek transaltion of the OT Hebrew. And yet, it is the inspired word - given them by the Holy Spirit - exactly as God intended.
 
wescot and hort are also freemasons. last i checked the bible warns us about joining some group like that. again; i hope folks watch thoes vids because they explain alot. what i did was listen to it while playing GW or other games. most people go out and see movies and they are an hour or more but cant watch a vid about the bible?
 
What basis are you using for saying we should not "join groups like this"? Certainly I don't disagree that we need to be careful about what groups we align ourselves with, but please be careful about condemning any specific group without presenting a solid scriptural basis.

Also, my free time is limited and precious. Don't link a 91-minute video and then complain that nobody will watch it to respond to a single, specific, 10-second point that you're trying to make. I don't generally go to the movies, spend hours playing games, or whatever else you assume we do. If you want to have an intellectual discussion, please present your case directly and clearly. Don't pastor-note it or demand that I go somewhere else to find your argument for you. Citing references is obviously appropriate. We have the tools to quote and link to the original site. If you have a specific point at 34 minutes and 12 seconds in the video, please tell me so I can fast-forward to the part of the video that is relevant.

Until then, go read that one book of the Old Testament, find the story about that one guy that does that one really cool thing. It'll just take a little bit of your time to find the one I'm talking about.
 
Last edited:
Preacher23 - I tend to agree with Durruck about the free time. I don't watch most of the videos posted in these forums unless they are under five minutes. My free time is precious and I carefully choose which books to read, videos to watch or games to play. I tend to respond to the person's views, not the video they post.

In this case, I don't agree with some of the statements I assumed were pulled from the video - so I didn't watch the video.
 
Preacher, I skimmed through this video stopping at several different points along the way and did not find him referencing the original Greek. (Did I miss it?) This is just poor scholarship.

He is treating the King James Version as an original text and deviations from it as a conspiracy to undermine doctrinal points. The original text is the words spoken by Christ or written by the apostles in Greek and Aramaic. The more closely we understand these as the original hearers, the more closely we understand the Bible.

For example, he argues about the verse "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3, KJV) that the change from "be converted" to "change" (RSV) or "turn" (NIV) was made to undermine the doctrine of conversion.

This is not true. The Greek word strepho means "turn" and -- while conversion is a nice concept -- it's not what Jesus said. "Conversion" can mean the same thing, but does not always to everyone. "Turning" is a more accurate translation.

While I would tend to agree with most of his doctrinal statements, he's looking at what he wants it to say and not what it does actually say in the original text. It's not our place to decide what the Bible should have said.

The "KJV-only" school of thought is just not right handling of the Word... and it slanders great godly men and women who have labored to help all of us understand more clearly what Christ and the apostles said. Not cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top