Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )



Forum Rules Enter at own risk!

The Philosophy, Science & Religion forum has been created as an unmoderated forum. The issues discussed here can and will get very intense. Please show respect and appreciation to alternative views posted here. We appreciate your consideration.

Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Accurate Bible?, controversy
Bookmark and Share
Raven 
Posted: 02-Jul-2004, 03:33 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,994
Joined: 23-Oct-2003
ZodiacHolly

Realm: Indianapolis, IN

male





A couple of points I have discovered that make the answers in this thread less definitive.

Is the Bible accurate? Needs to be defined.

Do you believe that the Bible is Translated Accurately?

Do you believe the Bible to be historically accurate?

Do you believe that the original manuscripts that comprise the Bible were accurately preserved up to translation?

Do you believe that the Bible accurately conveys God's word?

Also this is from the analytical viewpoint. (being part Vulcan tongue.gif )

If you believe that the Bible should include more than it does already(i.e. other texts that have never been included in the Cannon or are not widely accepted as part of it) Why?

Also if you believe that the Bible should include more or less, have you read the Bible in it's entirety, Old and New Testaments and other texts that you believe should be a part of the Bible to see if it makes sense to you that the other texts are not a part of the Bible. (obviously someone did that at some time and if I was disputing them I would want to see if I could see what they saw)

If you believe part of the Bible has been changed or deleted to suit the church and it's agenda, why and what evidence can you offer to support this? Or are you basing what you believe about the Bible on what you percieve to be possible or not possible.

Ulitmately faith equates with trust. If you believe in an all powerful creator, do you believe do you believe that he is capable of keeping his word in tact for all of his followers to read?


Certainly some things are provable and others not. It seems senseless to argue what can not be proven one way or another. If you have already made up your mind that the authors and characters in the Bible are guilty until proven inocent then in many cases (such as Issac and Abraham) the most solid evidence that you have is what is presented by the characters in the story by the author and at some point you either decide to trust the story and the author or not. Reasoning about a story happening more than once are not conclusive and are arbitrary. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that history could repeat itself on some level and maybe quite closely. (this happens all the time)

I see how some have arrived at their opinions, but I would like to know how others have and what they are based on or if they had even considered where those opinions came from previously.

I personally formed my opinion about the Bible by reading it intitially (with the idea that the stories would be full of wholes but that I may find some truth in it) Then examining it in light of external evidence. (I.E. archeology, preservation methods, translation and methods, etc...) Then cross referencing for difficulties (apparent contradictions) and seeing if they could really be reconciled (with in the Bible itself and across various English translations)

I compared it with what science says are there any contradictions?(provable hard science, not theories as they are frequently unsubstantiated)

From a literature standpoint, can the Bible be trusted as an accurate representation of what it was originally in all parts.

Finally the Cannon, what about other works, should they be given equal weight or any weight at all compared to the Bible. (I.E. Gnostic works, other Gospels, Apochrypha, Book of Mormon, etc....not meaning that I have read every single work that was not deamed worthy of being included in the Cannon of Scripture, but a very significant amount, enough to convince me that the Cannon is as it should be)

I have spent the last 18 years of my adult life working on this endeavor as I for one want to know why I believe what I believe and I am not suggesting that anyone should take my word for it. I simply think that in considering whether or not the Bible is the word of God a substantial amount of effort should be put forth because if it is indeed his devine word, this is one of the most important decisions that anyone will ever make in their lives.

(sorry for the long winded ness wink.gif )

Mikel


--------------------
He is no fool who gives up that which he can not keep to gain that which he cannot loose

www.arminta.net
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               View My Space Profile.
Top
WizardofOwls 
Posted: 02-Jul-2004, 03:34 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Wanderer and Vagabond
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 5,141
Joined: 12-Mar-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Wytheville, Virginia

male





Well, I will just say that I am of the old school of Christain beliefs: I believe that the Bible is the written Word of God. I believe it AS WRITTEN and prefer the KJV because I believe it is the closest and most powerful of the written versions (though I do have other versions in case I find something difficult to understand in the KJV). Yes, the KJV was written at the behest of King James, but I do believe that he was inspired by God to do so and that translators he employed to do so were led by God. I believe in a literal translation of the Bible. For instance, when the Bible says the world was created in seven day, I believe it was a literal seven days as we know them. And yes I believe that God IS all-powerful, and is powerful enough to keep His own Word pure.

Nuff said by me.

A bumper sticker I saw once that best expreeses my views:
The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.


--------------------
Sln agus beannachd,
Allen R. Alderman

'S i Alba tr mo chridhe. 'S i Gidhlig cnan m' anama.
Scotland is the land of my heart. Gaelic is the language of my soul.
PMEmail PosterMy Photo Album               
Top
Raven 
Posted: 02-Jul-2004, 04:14 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,994
Joined: 23-Oct-2003
ZodiacHolly

Realm: Indianapolis, IN

male





QUOTE (WizardofOwls @ 02-Jul-2004, 03:34 PM)
I believe in a literal translation of the Bible. For instance, when the Bible says the world was created in seven day, I believe it was a literal seven days as we know them. And yes I believe that God IS all-powerful, and is powerful enough to keep His own Word pure.


I'm going to use you just for an example here Alan, I hope you don't mind unsure.gif

This is what I am talking about Bible accuracy, Alan believes that the Bible is to be taken literally and this has nothing to do with the translation being literal, but the interpretation.

Alan obviously believes that the Bible is completely accurate (as I do, just for different reasons biggrin.gif )

This is just where the semantics can lead to confusion about what we are actually talking about. At some point if we consider the Bible we will make one of 3 choices, I believe, I don't believe, not enough evidence to make a decision.


Peace

Mikel
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               View My Space Profile.
Top
DesertRose 
Posted: 02-Jul-2004, 05:08 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 6,913
Joined: 09-Nov-2003
ZodiacAlder

Realm: The desert of Arizona

female





Wow! Very interesting conversation. I am like in Allen in the point that I believe the Bible is the literal word of God that God inspired men to write. I am sure that down through the ages that written translations got messed up somehow. I know that I wrote that I was told that the New American Standard was the most accurate, but personally I much prefer the New American Standard.........much easier reading biggrin.gif

You all bring up some very good points!

Peace and love!


--------------------
Fine art & photography by DESERT ROSE IMAGES
http://www.desertrose-images.com
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteMy Photo Album               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 02-Jul-2004, 05:23 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





I did not come to you with eloquence of speech, I came to you preaching Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Paul

unsure.gif I believe we can get too wrapped up in wandering wondering. I'm not saying that the thoughts in this thread are aimless, just that I like to interject what I find to be the most important reality in all of man's understanding. Jesus. Without him we can do nothing. We are poor, wretched, and miserable.

The Bible says that God writes his word upon our hearts. If that is true, then why are there so many that say "this is what this means" and "this is what that means". The word written in the texts may in some instances be just that, word. The word written on the heart is The Word. Our need for our Creator, and His Son, Jesus, is I think, part of our DNA. The fact that we can deny that part of ourself as a matter of decision is very interesting, but we can, and so many do. But that Word is there nonetheless. I hope that somewere along this post as many as contribute will evidence their scholarly interest with a real knowledge of Him, that which can not be learned in a classroom.


--------------------
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.
~Mark Twain
PMEmail Poster               
Top
reddrake79 
Posted: 05-Jul-2004, 12:37 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Braveheart Member
******

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 132
Joined: 10-Mar-2004
ZodiacRowan

Realm: oregon

male





without the Bible, we would not know what Jesus is like and what he taught. Yes, God wrote the need for him into us, i dont neccessarily think it was the DNA smile.gif. That is why you will find men or women who don't know anything about the Bible but are searching for God. That is why every culture in the world has some sort of religious belief. However, God specifically reveals himself in the Bible, His charachter, His promises, His comandments. currently there are forces at work in our culture that wish to eliminate the Bible from public places and history. Most notably the ACLU. (after all they just attacked the pledge of allegience because two words were added in the 60's-Under God) That is why we need to know if we can trust the Bible. If you don't, I can give you reasons to at least reevaluate that, if you do great but how many attacks on that belief can you stand up too? (I am asking this hypothetically please don't feel that I am asking you to respond to this)

The bible says to always be ready with an answer for the faith that you have. Saying that it is your faith is a valid answer. But is there more?

If you believe the Bible has innacurate statements, which parts are innacurate?

Is it where abraham lied to abimalech or where Christ died on the cross for our sins?

I find that most people say it is the part they disagree with, or that they cannot believe, not that the Bible disagrees with itself.

The many translations, im talking main streem ones such as KJV, NIV, NASB, etc., agree even though they were translated at different times. The NIV wasn't until Late 1800' or early 1900's (I cant remember exactly when, somebody please cone up with the specific date). Well after the time the Catholic church lots its monopoly on religious thought. Yet, They still agree with the KJV which was translated in 1611. The Books of the Bible are written by close to 50 different authors over more than 1000 years. That many people cant agree on pizza toppings, yet they agreed on religous philosophy and what the character of God was and how Christ came to earth to be our sacrifice. We have had what, roughly 10-15 people post here maybe less, about half us so far believe the Bible to be the accurate word of God, the other half believe it is fallible.

I prefer the King James, I grew up using the NIV. I like the imagry that only the King james uses. The thees and thous never really confused me. I also believe it is the most accurate word for word translation. I say this to let people know where I am coming from not to cause another debate.

The King James Bible is called that because it was COMISSIONED by King James not because it pleased King James. Who by the way persecuted protestants so why would he have a bible written that could readily be used by protestants, if he was going to mess with it.

I see a lot of opinion on the matter, which is good smile.gif But if opinion is backed up by more opinion than it is nothing more than faith. I can list many reasons why I believe the Bible is 100% accurate. A big chunk of those reasons is my faith that God did what He said he would do, I believe in an all powerfull, personal God. Some other reasons are extrabiblical. Such as the accurate history, accurate psychology, accurate science (not including creation because science cannot prove creation or disprove it. )

So far I believe only 1 subject has been braught up to show the Bible has errors, Abraham and Issaac and the story with pharoh and abimalech. In my mind this was settled, I believe the text clearly shows that they are three different stories not misinformed retellings of the same story. No error on this subject.


--------------------
Friendship, Love, and Loyalty
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Shadows 
Posted: 05-Jul-2004, 03:15 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Reader of souls, vision seeker, TROLL
Group Icon

Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4,169
Joined: 20-Jun-2003
ZodiacHolly

Realm: The frontier of Penn's Woods

male





If you take any 2 bibles, the KJV and one other and read and compair passage to passage you will see there is a great difference in the meanings presented by both. My daughter, who at the time was 7, was asked to read a passage at her mothers church , we have many versions of bibles in this house, and she saw the differences in meaning right off in the pasages she was to read. REMEMBER they are written by men who claim to be of god.


--------------------
I support the separation of church and hate!

IMAGINATION - the freest and largest nation in the world!


One can not profess to be of "GOD" and show intolerence and prejudice towards the beliefs of others.

Am fear nach gleidh na hairm san tsith, cha bhi iad aige n am a chogaidh.
He that keeps not his arms in time of peace will have none in time of war.

"We're all in this together , in the parking lot between faith and fear" ... O.C.M.S.

Beasts feed; man eats; only the man of intellect knows how to eat well.

"Without food we are nothing, without history we are lost." - SHADOWS


Is iomadh duine laghach a mhill an Creideamh.
Religion has spoiled many a good man.

The clan MacEwen
PMEmail PosterUsers Website My Photo Album               
Top
DesertRose 
Posted: 05-Jul-2004, 09:09 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 6,913
Joined: 09-Nov-2003
ZodiacAlder

Realm: The desert of Arizona

female





They were men who claimed to be "inspired" by God.........there is a difference. God ordained these men himself and inspired them to write what He wanted written for the rest of us mankind. Just my humble opinion. smile.gif
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteMy Photo Album               
Top
Raven 
Posted: 05-Jul-2004, 10:27 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,994
Joined: 23-Oct-2003
ZodiacHolly

Realm: Indianapolis, IN

male





QUOTE (Shadows @ 05-Jul-2004, 03:15 PM)
If you take any 2 bibles, the KJV and one other and read and compair passage to passage you will see there is a great difference in the meanings presented by both. My daughter, who at the time was 7, was asked to read a passage at her mothers church , we have many versions of bibles in this house, and she saw the differences in meaning right off in the pasages she was to read. REMEMBER they are written by men who claim to be of god.

Shadows,

I don't think you understand that these are not different Bibles, . unsure.gif These are simply different translations of the same texts into English. I think that if you are using the translations as your only method of comparison and then say all the versions are different, then you are ignoring the fact that of archaic langage in the KJV and different methodology of translation (i.e. literal vs accurate, modern language vs poetic language, paraphrase vs translation, etc...)

Remember that they are only translated by men. The original manuscripts (those used to render all modern English translations) are the same verse for verse.

But don't take my word for it check out a couple of different interlinear Bibles from the library. (an interlinear Bible has a parallel translation with the original Greek/Hebrew/Interlinear text) Get one for the KJV or NKJV and one for any other popular version including, NIV, RSV,NSRV etc... and you will have all of the available manuscripts.

It is not like there are a bunch of conflicting manuscripts floating around. The 2 available are 99% the same with just a couple of missing verses. (i.e. the last part of the last chapter of Mark, 1John5:7) that's it and everything said in each of those passages is actually stated elsewhere anyway.

I know there has been a lot of conversation here about what people believe the Bible to be but the question is about Biblical accuracy.

The main question seems to be the reliability of the scriptures as far as how they have been handed down. I would recomend to anyone who is truly interested to read a book by Josh McDowell "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" It is heavily documented from many extra Biblical and scientific secular sources. It presents many very compelling arguments for the historical, and bibliographical reliabiliy of the Bible as a work of antiquity.

Chapter 4 deals exclusively with this subject. Check it out it is well worth the little bit of time it takes to read.

Peace

Mikel

BTW - what reddrake said also wink.gif
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               View My Space Profile.
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 06-Jul-2004, 05:26 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





Although I can't name them offhand, I have heard some scientists speak, and even reference other scientists as well, who have set out to prove the Bible inaccurate. To show the fallability of scripture, to show the Bible's contradictions, and to disprove the entire account of the Creation. These men set out to disprove, and end up believers. I'm not saying all scientists who study the Bible end up Christians, but the numbers that have should at least serve as a testimony of the power of the word.

There is another person, I have read his book "The Case for Christ". He also has written "The Case for Faith". He was an atheistic investigative reporter for a major newspaper (I think the Chicago Tribune), and he did much the same as so many scientists have. He used his investigating talants to research the reliability of Biblical text. He too became a Christian, and a true believer. I think that his name is Lee Strobel.

Anyway, I thought some of you might find this interesting.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
birddog20002001 
Posted: 06-Jul-2004, 06:24 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



No Dude, It's the Isle of Dude, Dude.
Group Icon

Group: Isle of Man
Posts: 663
Joined: 12-Sep-2003
ZodiacRowan

Realm: North Carolina

male





I found this interesting article about who "owns" the Bible at http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/kjvcopy.htm this article is in the same vane as this forum discussion because it covers a profit motive for creating new translations.

QUOTE
The most bizarre reason for rejecting the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, or the New King James Version is that these ? and apparently all other major versions since 1881 ? were copyrighted. The argument is that the publishers, by copyrighting their new Bibles, insure themselves a hefty royalty from every copy sold, and in fact made the new translations with the sinister motive of making a profit on the gullibility of religious people who buy every new Bible that comes along. The KJV, in contrast, is characterized as being far superior to any other version because it is "the only Bible published without a copyright!" as one recent publication stated. God just won't use a copyrighted Bible, some insist.


QUOTE
To the present day the KJV is published in England under copyright. Private conversation with Sam Moore, president of Thomas Nelson Publishers of Nashville, Tennessee, the world's largest Bible publisher, confirmed that there are currently four license holders with legal authority in England to publish the KJV ? the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, as well as William Collins Sons & Co., Ltd, and Eyre & Spottiswoode. In illustration of this fact, let me note that my father owns two KJV New Testaments, both printed in England, with one published by Oxford and the other by Cambridge. Both were purchased new in 1971. Below the respective coat of arms of each university are the words "cum privilegio." These New Testaments were printed under copyright.


this is an interesting portion from http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/biblever.htm

QUOTE
At the other extreme from absurdly literal translations are absurdly dynamic ones, such as the Cotton-Patch Version (CPV). This was translated from Greek in the 1960s by a man named Clarence Jordan, who decided not only to replace ancient ways of speaking with modern ones (like most dynamic translations) but to replace items of ancient culture with items of modern ones.

Palestine became transformed into the modern American South; Jerusalem turned into Atlanta; Matthew the tax collector worked for the Internal Revenue Service; and Jesus became a roughshod inhabitant of Valdosta, Georgia.(3)

Consider how the CPV and the NIV render Matthew 9:16-17:

"Nobody ever uses new, unshrunk material to patch a dress that's been washed. For in shrinking, it will pull the old material and make a tear. Nor do people put new tubes in old, bald tires. If they do, the tires will blow out, and the tubes will be ruined and the tires will be torn up. But they put new tubes in new tires and both give good mileage" (CPV).

"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved" (NIV).

Between the extremes of the Concordant Version and the Cotton-Patch Version is a spectrum of respectable translations which strike different balances between literal and dynamic equivalence.


This post has been edited by birddog20002001 on 06-Jul-2004, 06:34 AM


--------------------
"when a person is prepared to die for a cause, and indeed to glory in such a death, it impossible to supress him or the cause it represents." Jawaharlal Nehru

"Only the suppressed word is dangerous." Ludwig Borne

"All of our freedoms are a single bundle, all must be secure if any is to be preserved." Dwight David Eisenhower

"All men's souls are immortal, but the souls of the righteous are both immortal and divine." Socrates
PMEmail Poster               
Top
birddog20002001 
Posted: 06-Jul-2004, 06:50 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



No Dude, It's the Isle of Dude, Dude.
Group Icon

Group: Isle of Man
Posts: 663
Joined: 12-Sep-2003
ZodiacRowan

Realm: North Carolina

male





The article found here http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html shows that the KJV a protestant Bible did not have full access to the stores of works at the Vatican an some mistakes were made due to this

QUOTE
Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV.

The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV errors, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much worse!

Translation Errors

Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

II Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

I Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

I Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

II Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

I Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.

Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."

Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong

No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead.

In Psalms 81:4, "was" is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.

We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized "are" is incorrect and that "were cast" in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), "I am he." The "he" is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great "I AM" of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.

In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words "the son" are not in the original Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph.

Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words "it were". It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!

Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words "to be." The fact is, Christians are now saints.

I Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It should say: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God."

Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized word "is" in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these verses is: don't let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the judging.

I Timothy 3:11 has "their" in italics, which is not implied in the original.

II Peter 2:5 should not have "person, a." Noah was the eighth preacher of righteousness.

I John 2:23 has "[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek.

Punctuation Problems

Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." The comma should not be after "thee", but "day." The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.

Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between "risen" and "early" and there should be no comma after week as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ." Thus, it should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ."



QUOTE
Unjustified Additions to the KJV Derived From Latin Vulgate, Not in Greek Text

These additions should be omitted from the KJV:

Matthew 27:35
"that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots." This verse appears properly in John 19:24.
John 8:9-10
Delete: "being convicted by their own conscience . . . unto the last . . . alone . . . and saw none but the woman . . . those thine accusers."

The Greek properly reads: "But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left with the woman being before him. Jesus lifted himself up and said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?'"

Acts 9:5-6
"it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him . . . ."
Acts 10:6
"he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"
Acts 10:21
"which were sent unto him from Cornelius"
Acts 21:8
"that were of Paul's company"
Romans 13:9
"Thou shalt not bear false witness"
Romans 16:20
"Amen"
Colossians 1:14
"through his blood"
Hebrews 2:7
"and didst set him over the works of thy hands"
Hebrews 11:13
"and were persuaded of them and embraced them"
Hebrews 12:20
"or with a dart shot through"
I John 2:23
"(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" is placed in italics in the KJV. The Greek Text omits this portion entirely.
I John 5:7-8
"in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these thee are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" As previously explained, this is not part of the original Greek text.
Revelation 1:8
"the beginning and the ending"
Revelation 1:11
"I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and . . . which are in Asia"
Revelation 1:20
"which thou sawest"
Revelation 2:17
"to eat of"
Revelation 5:4
"and to read"
Revelation 5:14
"four and twenty . . . him that lives forever and ever"
Revelation 11:1
"and the angel stood"
Revelation 12:12
"the inhabiters of"
Revelation 14:5
"before the throne of God"
Revelation 15:2
"over his mark"
Revelation 16:7
"another out of"
Revelation 16:14
"of the earth and"
Revelation 21:3
"and be their God"
Misplaced Verses in the KJV

In Matthew 23:13-14, the proper order is: "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

Romans 16:25-27 belongs after Romans 14:23, not at the end of the book.

Items Wrongly Substituted or Left Out of the KJV, Should be Reinstated

Matthew 27:49
"And another took a spear and pierced his side and out came water and blood."
[The Orthodox Church says this was part of the Greek Text until mistakenly deleted in 511 A.D.]

Luke 9:50
". . . for his is not against you."
This verse should read: "And Jesus said to him, Forbid him not, for he is not against you. For whoever is not against you is for you."

Luke 10:22
"And having turned to the disciples, he said:"
John 1:28
"Bethany" instead of "Bethabara", which was a corrupt Egyptian reading.
Acts 9:19
Should read, "Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at the time in Damascus."
Acts 20:28
Should read, " . . . the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of the Lord and God, which He purchased with His own blood."
Philippians 3:3
Should be "serve in (the) Spirit of God" rather than "serve God in the spirit."
Colossians 1:6
Should have added "and is growing" after "bringeth forth fruits."
Colossians 2:13
Should read, "And you--being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh--you hath He quickened together with him, having forgiven us all the trespasses . . . "
I Thess. 5:21
Should read, "Despise not prophesyings, but prove all things . . . ."
II Timothy 2:19
"of (the) Lord" rather than "of Christ."
Hebrews 8:8
"To them", not "with them."
Hebrews 13:9
"Carried away", not "carried about."
James 5:12
Should be "into hypocrisy" instead of "under judgment."
I Peter 2:2
End of verse should have added: "unto salvation."
Revelation 2:21
Should be " . . . and she wills not to repent of her fornication."
Revelation 6:12
Should be " . . . and the whole moon became blood . . . ."
Revelation 8:7
Should be " . . . and the third part of the land was burnt up, and the third part of the trees . . . ."
Revelation 8:13
"eagle" rather than "angel."
Revelation 11:18
"nations" instead of "dead."
Revelation 12:6
Should read, "And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has there a place prepared of God . . . ."
Revelation 13:5
Should read, " . . . and power was given it to make war forty-two months . . . ."
Revelation 14:1
Should read, "having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads . . . ."
Revelation 15:3
"nations" instead of "saints."
Revelation 17:8
Should read, " . . . when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and shall be present . . . ."
Revelation 18:17
Should read, " . . . everyone who sails to any place . . . " instead of "and all the company in ships."
Revelation 18:20
Should read, " . . . ye holy saints and apostles and prophets."
Revelation 19:12
Should read, " . . . and on his head were many crowns, having names written, and a name written that no man knew . . . ."
Revelation 19:17
Should read, " . . . gather yourselves together unto the great supper of God . . . ", not "supper of the great God."
Revelation 21:24
Should read, "And the nations shall walk by means of its light."
Revelation 22:19
Should read, "tree of life" instead of "book of life."
Revelation 22:21
Should close with "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with all of the saints. Amen."
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Raven 
Posted: 06-Jul-2004, 07:49 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,994
Joined: 23-Oct-2003
ZodiacHolly

Realm: Indianapolis, IN

male





QUOTE (birddog20002001 @ 06-Jul-2004, 06:24 AM)
I found this interesting article about who "owns" the Bible at http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/kjvcopy.htm this article is in the same vane as this forum discussion because it covers a profit motive for creating new translations.


While interesting reasearch Bird Dog this is a little bit of a different discussion. This is more which translation.

There are a number of people who say that the KJV is the only reliable Translation. I personally find these arguments to be without merit and have found most of the points of contintion to be on minutia. I have read all of the poplular translations and have found them to say essentially the same thing even when read in parallel. Of course in some cases it would be possible to come up with different meanings if you ignore the larger context and are not familiar with Biblical exegis. I have also read portions of some ridiculous (i hesitate to call some of them translations, they were so bad and far removed from anything that resembled a serious work that I assumed them to be at the best a paraphrase with a lot of literary license being used, i.e the Cotton Patch Bible, the White Mans Bible...at the least written with a definite ax to grind and not to be compared to serious translation efforts) I have read enough in these to know that I do not want to waste my time on a complete reading.

Onward starwars.gif

Mikel
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               View My Space Profile.
Top
Raven 
Posted: 06-Jul-2004, 08:32 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,994
Joined: 23-Oct-2003
ZodiacHolly

Realm: Indianapolis, IN

male





QUOTE (birddog20002001 @ 06-Jul-2004, 06:50 AM)
The article found here http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html shows that the KJV a protestant Bible did not have full access to the stores of works at the Vatican an some mistakes were made due to this

I found this article interesting even though I am not unfamiliar with most of these articles. I also found it interesting that while stating

"No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead."

then attempts to correct words that are simply archaic in their use. Also if you were to rely on this critisism you see that this author has made a judgement about the doctrine of the King James Bible, most likely because it does not line up with his own.

So I don't spend all day here and not get any work done here are just a few more examples of the inaccuracy of this article and then we can move on.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Reads
10:9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is
said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.

Example of archaic use of language. i.e difference between the King's English in the 16th century and modern. Also author give's his opinion as fact as far as his perception of the connotation given here. For example reading the same passage I have never had the idea that Nimrod was a good guy as a result.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Another example of archaic language. The word scapegoat taken from the context of the translation bears just this meaning. What they are talking about in this particular passage is actually goats which are being used for atonement in a sacrificial way. The idea is that the goats are not guiltyof anythingthat is why they are an acceptable sacrifice. That is where the modern idea comes from even though the connotation today is not exact with what is represented in Leviticus. The author then goes on to make an unsupported statement that The Azazel goal represents Satan you can not get that from the context even substituting the translation he suggests.

Actually reads
16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for
the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. (Insert - one removed or separated here)
16:9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD'S lot
fell, and offer him for a sin offering.
16:10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat,
shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement
with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the
wilderness.

I would have to make the assumption that scape added to goat in the 16th century mean't just what it was translated to mean.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11

The author is simply making a judgement call here about the proper sense. I also did a little research on the author and could not find that he had any credintials that would ad credence to his opinion over the opinions of mainstream modern translators who have acknowledged that the KJV is the most literal modern translation. I said before that I was not unfamiliar with most of this and that is because this author is bringing his critisism from a particular theological bent, which means that these aledged discrepancies do not line up with his theology.

I selected these particular portions of this article because they were the easiest to deal with given my limited time this morning. Also when I find glaring discrepancies in an article such as this and unsupported statements made by someone without any credintials to back them up, I find that in most cases you can discount much more of what they say, if there case is so weak to begin with that they feel they must bolster it with more weak argument like this.

I could go on and will later if you would like tongue.gif

But I must run for now.

TTFN

Mikel
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               View My Space Profile.
Top
reddrake79 
Posted: 06-Jul-2004, 11:58 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Braveheart Member
******

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 132
Joined: 10-Mar-2004
ZodiacRowan

Realm: oregon

male





In response to the copyright issue. I havn't looked at these specific instances yet, but last time I checked two companies could not copyright the exact same thing, or idea. It has to be different in some way. This said I don't believe it is the translation that is neccessarily copyrighted but the study notes and crossreferances. The little helpful things that publishers add into the Bible but don't claim that it is part of the direct revelation from God. Like Historical background, authors, who the epistles were written to. I use the Life Application Bible KJV. If I put it next to any other KJV the text is exactly the same except for the study notes if any.

Also, first the vatican is accused of hiding texts and altering them, now the later translators are being accused of errors because they did not use the manuscripts the vatican had ( again we are assuming that these powerful people were to stupid to destroy or alter anything they didn't want revealed later). I thaught that would have been a mark in their favor. wink.gif
PMEmail Poster               
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 








Celtic RadioTM broadcasts through Live365.com and StreamLicensing.com which are officially licensed under SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SOCAN.
2014 Celtic Radio Network, Highlander Radio, Celtic Moon, Celtic Dance, Ye O' Celtic Pub and Celt-Rock-Radio.
All rights and trademarks reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.
Celtic Graphics 2014, Cari Buziak


Link to CelticRadio.net!
Link to CelticRadio.net
View Broadcast Status and Statistics!

Best Viewed With IE 8.0 (1680 x 1050 Resolution), Javascript & Cookies Enabled.


[Home] [Top]

Celtic Hearts Gallery | Celtic Mates Dating | My Celtic Friends | Celtic Music Radio | Family Heraldry | Medival Kingdom | Top Celtic Sites | Web Celt Blog | Video Celt