First English Translations

How has God preserved His word? How has the enemy tried to pervert the word of God?
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

First English Translations

Post by wackzingo »

I thought it was interesting that a position taken by many KJV only people is that making "modern translations" is wrong.

It's said by everyone that holds to the KJV only view that the "KJV is God's only preserved word in the English language".

What I want to know is what gives them the authority and right to say that?

What makes them think that?

The KJV was not the first English Translation so why was it alright for the KJV translators to make a more modern version but not for anyone else?

Why did God not preserve His Word the first time it was translated into English perfectly?

Look at John 3:16 from older English Translations than the KJV:

(Tyndale Year, 1525)
16For God so loveth the worlde yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe.

(Geneva 1599)
16For God so loued the worlde, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

And Yes, those spelling are correct Old English. Although not what is considered True Old English which comes from the 1200-1300's.

Why don't KJV only people believe we should just study these earlier translations instead of turning to the a more modern and understandable KJV?
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Re: First English Translations

Post by David »

wackzingo wrote:I thought it was interesting that a position taken by many KJV only people is that making "modern translations" is wrong. It's not that I think it is wrong it because I've found error in them where as I have found none in the Holy Bible or as you call it the KJV ;)

It's said by everyone that holds to the KJV only view that the "KJV is God's only preserved word in the English language".

What I want to know is what gives them the authority and right to say that?

What makes them think that? I've given my answer for both the above and this question. Are you looking for others?

The KJV was not the first English Translation so why was it alright for the KJV translators to make a more modern version but not for anyone else?

Why did God not preserve His Word the first time it was translated into English perfectly?

Look at John 3:16 from older English Translations than the KJV:

(Tyndale Year, 1525)
16For God so loveth the worlde yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe.

(Geneva 1599)
16For God so loued the worlde, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

And Yes, those spelling are correct Old English. Although not what is considered True Old English which comes from the 1200-1300's.

Why don't KJV only people believe we should just study these earlier translations instead of turning to the a more modern and understandable KJV? Well Zach in a way we do study from these bibles. You see there were a number that were consulted during the translation. The bible used according to the rules of translation were the Bishops Bible and these translations: Tindoll's, Mathews, Coverdale's, Whitchurchs' and the Geneva. These specific translations were used when they agreed better with the Text (original tongues) than the Bishops Bible.



Rule 1. The ordibnary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

I would also like to add for your consideration Rule 4. When a Word hath diverse Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most Ancient of Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

as I have found none in the Holy Bible or as you call it the KJV
Even if you were showed one clearly would you admit it?

How did you come to that conclusion? It appears that you just randomly selected a version, the KJV, and then said anything that does not agree with this has to be wrong. How do you know it doesn't have errors? Have you read every all the manuscripts from which it was translated and compared that with the KJV to see that they translated every work correctly?

Is refusing to acknowledge the facts and believe the opposite anyways
really living by faith?

Is faith really blind?

Want proof that the KJV has error? I gave it to you and you ignored it, never answered and refused to acknowledge it. (Unless you did and I never saw it. Did you?)
Hebrews 11:17:(KJV)
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son"


When it's clear that Abraham didn't have only one begotten son.


This is an obvious error. Serious? No...it doesn't change anything of serious doctrine...but it is still an error. It should have been translated "one only", "only son" or "one and only" but to be translated begotten is contradicting scripture because it's clear that he had begotten another son before Isaac. If Isaac was offered before Abraham was begotten then we could say, "Well...at the time when he was offered he was the only begotten son". But we know this isn't true because he was not the only begotten child at that time. You yourself acknowledged that.

Does this mean that God did not preserve his Word? No...God has, every Greek manuscript from which modern translations come and the T.R. contain the word monogenes. The error is in how we translate that word. That is the problem, our translation, not God's Word. I don't believe there is an English Translation that is 100% perfect in it's translation of every single word. That's why it's so cool that as we have so many English translations that have errors, we also have so many tools to help us find those errors, like this discussion board, the internet, books, etc.
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

I did ignore it, I can explain as I did others only I believe you are seeking out error not answers. Look, I could go into this and give you an explanation but we got no where before. Different bibles, different translation, different translator(s), different manuscripts.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

The reason is that we are not having a bible study which applies to application and true study. The reason this whole discussion started is because Joeseph from http://www.psalm9416.com made the claim as you have that the KJV is God's only preserved word in the English language. And you guys have went even further as to say it has absolutely no error in translation.

So..yeah, of course I'm looking for error because in my mind I see lots of them...and some are very obvious like Hebrews 11:16. You made the claim the KJV is without error. I pointed out an error here and then the discussion stops.

It's important because the KJV is being used less and less everyday as the language becomes more outdated. Soon it will only be used by only a select few. And if you're right, at the present pace 99% of the English speaking world will be using perverted translations in the near future.


Please answer this...if you came to the conclusion that the KJV had errors would that really mean that God has not preserved His Word?

Or, would it simply mean that your idea of how he would preserve His Word was wrong?

What I mean is...I have no doubt that God has preserved His Word through the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. So I don't believe God has failed. But as fallible men attempt to take God's preserved word into other languages there will be errors. Some serious and other not so serious. That's why we need to study and trust that the Holy Spirit will show us when something is wrong so that we might discover the truth.
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

Look I went on to answer many things but we got no where. I can answer these as I did others but for what reason, what did it get us? :cry:
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

You say the KJV is God's only preserved word in english which if true would mean that the bibles I use are not. That is a serious issue. But if the KJV has an error than that means that God has more than one version. It doesn't mean all have are good versions, but it does mean that there is more than one. The logical reasoning that God would only have one translation in a language forever is ridiculous.
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

Yes indeed a very serious issue and I believe you have the wrong book.

You look at man and what he is capable of; corruption. I look to God to furnish His word pure and true. How serious is He? Read Psalms 119 the entire chapter is dedicated to how serious God is about His word I believe that, every word of it. There is nothing to decifer no doubt in my miltary mind He has furnished me with the truth, I can believe it as the truth I just need understanding and it is God who gives it. What I can't understand is how anyone could think God would send confusion in many books all claiming to be His word yet each saying something different. Or why anyone would think God is not capable of preserving His word for us without error.

You call it blind faith, I just call it faith
So..yeah, of course I'm looking for error because in my mind I see lots of them...and some are very obvious like Hebrews 11:16. You made the claim the KJV is without error. I pointed out an error here and then the discussion stops.


Not so fast Zack all you have been doing is posting perceived error. I try explain each yet you never discuss the explanation you just keep pasting more verses you think have error. I've been called a Jehovah Witness an idol worshipper, and now I'm part of some 'movement' so yes I did stop there never was discussion.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

You look at man and what he is capable of; corruption.
Yes, I well aware that man is capable of corruption. We both agree here, the only difference here is I don't believe there is an exception to this rule. I believe that man is fallible and therefore nothing he does will be perfect.
I look to God to furnish His word pure and true
When a friend of mine had cancer at 17 I knew God was capable and willing to heal her. There never has been doubt. But God did not heal her the way we wanted. There were those who said, "God will heal her and she will be healthy again because God's Word tells us He will heal us". Does God's word say that? Yes, but we have taken what God has said and made it conform to our own ideas of what we think it should mean when we want Him to. She died at age 17 from cancer. Does that mean that God did not care? Does it mean that we did not have enough faith? Or does it mean that our idea of how God operates is not always right?
What I can't understand is how anyone could think God would send confusion in many books all claiming to be His word yet each saying something different.
You fail to acknowledge the fact that the KJV is just one of many translations and is therefore part of all this confusion. You just think you have found the right one. But most view it as just one of many.

This reasoning says you and I were never created by God because we are evil and God is not the creator of evil. Or is it possible for something God created as good to become corrupt? Why did God not preserve us and keep us from becoming evil?
Or why anyone would think God is not capable of preserving His word for us without error.
I never said God is not capable nor have I said I don't think He has. In fact I know He is capable and I know He has. How has he done it? I don't know exactly, but I know He has and I know that it can't be the KJV only.
Not so fast Zack all you have been doing is posting perceived error. I try explain each yet you never discuss the explanation you just keep pasting more verses you think have error. I've been called a Jehovah Witness an idol worshipper, and now I'm part of some 'movement' so yes I did stop there never was discussion.
We were discussing one verse and one word--John 3:16 and the word "begotten". Did you not see anything I wrote? I explained over and over again why I thought it did not make sense in that verse. I explained several times why I think the word begotten gives us the wrong impression. You too explained why you thought it did belong there? Is it not a discussion simply because I did not agree with you?

We were talking about the Word begotten, so I pasted every verse where it appeared in the New Testament. I did this to show context and how the translators of the KJV were inconsistent in how they translated the same verse. I also showed how they translated the same word wrongly in another verse. It was all connected. I never changed the topic, only the examples. We finally came to an example that clearly shows error and the discussion stopped.

I wasn't calling you a Jehovah Witness, I was pointing out that what you wrote is close to what they teach and throwing it out there as a warning. It was my way of saying, "be careful and lets not go there". I'm sorry that you thought I was calling you that. Yes you are apart of a movement whether you like it or not. The KJV only is a movement. As for idol worshiping...I believe many KJV only people are in error of making a version rather than God's word and idol. But as for whether or not you have made something and idol and are worshiping it...I can't say, only you know that and that is between you and God.
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

Your expalnation was pasted form another website I asked you what the big words meant and you told me to google it, remember? I do not consider it an explantion. But if I understand correctly you think one and only promotes the uniqueness of Jesus the Christ. I agree he is unique but how is He unique what sets Him apart from us? It seems your explanation would leave it open to anyones interpretation whereas only begotten son settles it it leaves nothing open for debate other than what you think it should be. Never mind saying KJV anymore even thats been revised twice that I know of with new readings and use of other manuscripts as I said thee's thy's and thous' do make a KJV bible.

Even though Abraham had begotten many sons and Issac though begotten of Abraham was not his only. The verse you question refering to Issac as Abrahams only begotten son is showing us Issac as the only begotten son of promise of Abraham.

The pathetic question of Pilate. "What is truth?" is not more pathetic than the error of those who say that only by balancing one version against another, or by examing the various manuscript readings, those of apostates as well as those of the faithful, can we arrive at an approximate truth.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

We could move this back to the topic "The Word Begotten" if you want to continue to discuss it.
Your expalnation was pasted form another website I asked you what the big words meant and you told me to google it, remember? I do not consider it an explantion
I did not tell you to google it. Please go back and read it again. I was telling you about the define: function that can be used on google if you are not sure what something means. I then said I wasn't sure exactly what it meant either and then proceeded to explain what I had found by searching. I did not say "if you want to know then find out yourself". I was simply point out for future reference something that may be of use to you. I did give you an explanation in that same paragraph.

It appears you missed my explanation of why I think begotten should not be used in John 3:16. Since it wasn't much of an explanation let me quote it again just for the sake of discussion. This was my explantion.

What does begotten mean? In my opinion to say God's "only begotten son" or "one and only son" isn't what I would call a serious error but it's one that is used to say why modern translations are corrupt and perverted.

If the passage is only talking about the physical, material, tangible world than "only begotten" would make sense because in the physical material world Jesus did not exist nor was He made by human but He was begotten of God. But the passage is talking about God sending His son.

God sent a son that already was in existence but had yet to be "begotten of God" in a woman. Jesus wasn't begotten until life began inside the womb of Mary. But God send His "One and Only Son" into this world to die for our sins. Galatians 4 says, "When the right time came God sent His son, born of a woman, born under the law to redeem us under the law."

The word begotten seems confusing and misleading to me.


BEGET', v.t. pret. begot, begat; pp. begot, begotten.

1. To procreate, as a father or sire; to generate; as, to beget a son.

2. To produce, as an effect; to cause to exist; to generate; as, luxury begets vice.

The context of John 3:16 is talking about God the father and His relationship to His Son not the relationship of Mary's son. If we go by the definition above it could easily be understood to be saying that God only became the father of Jesus when He created, or produced, or caused Him to exist, or generated Him inside Mary. This says that God was not the father of Jesus because he had yet to cause Him to come into existence.

If He was already the father of Jesus then how did He create or cause something that already existed to exists?

Unto us a son is given, not begotten. Until us a son is born. Jesus already existed so to say that he was begotten is a contradiction. Unless you it is talking purely about the material, physical world.



If you read the passage quote above from the translators? Isaac was Abraham's only son but he was unique in that he was the child of promise. There are many examples of Jesus being different from us and having a different relationship to God.

What you wrote above sounds very close to the Jehovah's Witnesses who say Jesus isn't "THE" son of God but "A" son of God. They say from John 1 and other places that the Word isn't God but "A" God. They say Jesus is just our bother along with satan and a god along with many others. The problem with this is that we are not also God.

Don't forget the trinity. Jesus was fully man but still God, God the Son. Three eternally distinct being. If we go by your statement above we don't have the trinity but we have the 6billionity because Jesus isn't unique and we are all equal with Him. We are not equal with him. We have been given the same privileges and rights and are treated the same because of God's grace and mercy and the obedience of Christ.


Scripture teaches that Isaac was "one of a kind".

Hebrews 11:17:(KJV)
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,


Also please note how the KJV translators translated the word in other cases:

Luke 8:42:
For he had one only <3439> daughter <2364>, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.

Luke 9:38:
And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child <3439>.


John 1:14:
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten <3439> of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:18:
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten <3439> Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.



John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten <3439> Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. "


John 3:18:
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten <3439> Son of God. "


In all these cases the word is translated to mean "one and only".

How come the translators weren't consistent? or were they just adding their own commentary into the text by adding "begotten".






It important to be consistent in the translation of certain word unless the text clearly indicates it should be translated differently? What we have been discussing so far is one good example. Take for example these verses:

Luke 8:42:
For he had one only <3439> daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.

Luke 9:38:
And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child <3439>.

The word used for he had "one only" daughter and he is mine "only child" is the same word used in John 3:16 where it is translated "only begotten son" in the KJV.

By not being consistent in how they translated monogenes, it makes it hard for people to make the connection of God being a father with only one child that died and these men whose only children were dead or near death.



John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His..."

The importance here is that at the time when God sent His son Jesus...Jesus was His only son. You and I and everyone else had yet to be adopted and Jesus had yet to be begotten. Sure Jesus was begotten, but he also existed before he was begotten. Why do I think this is important?

Because while we were all sinner's, turning our backs on God and rejecting Him He though enough of us that He would be willing to sacrifice His "ONE AND ONLY SON" not just one of many. It was because of his willingness to give his only son for our sins and Jesus' obedience that we have now been adopted in as His sons and are called his brothers (Heb. 2). The word begotten is true, but it's out of place here because it takes away from this important truth that Jesus was unique as a son just as Isaac who although he had other brothers as you mentioned, he was not the "only begotten". You yourself said he was not the only begotten, but "your bible the KJV" says he was. You are correct and the KJV is incorrect. He was not the only bogotten as it says, but he was the "one and only" as in a unique way because he was the child of promise.

I'm sure I won't change your mind because it would mean that the KJV has errors. Hopefully others will see my point. God loved us so much that he did not spare even his only son. Now at this time Jesus is not his "only son" because we have been adopted, but at the time when God sent him He was.

How many sons did God have before Jesus was begotten? One
How many were begotten? One
How many after Jesus was begotten? Many

Begotten is not necessarily incorrect, but it can be misleading because of it's meaning and the context in which it's used. But I guess that's my opinion and we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one and others reading it will have to make their own decision.


David, I don't want you to think I deny that Jesus was begotten. The only thing I disagree with you about is whether the word is translated correctly and whether or not is should be placed in John 3:16.

I believe wholeheartedly that the son has always existed and was sent to live and die for our sins. I believe he was begotten by the father in a woman apart from any man. He lived, died, and rose from the dead to live in the flesh, all because of our sin and to give us a new life.

I don't think there is any difference between my saying that evil should have been translated calamity because it's used by atheists to say God is the creator of evil, and you saying the John 3:16 should should be translated begotten rather than "one and only" because it can be used by Muslims to say God doesn't have a son. In the end I think it's ridiculous to say that "one and only" could be used by anyone to say God doesn't have a son. Neither begotten or "one and only" could be used to say God doesn't have a son.


Like you said, I don't think we disagree on much, but one thing I would still like to know why you don't think the KJV is in error in translating:

Hebrews 11:17:(KJV)
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son"


When it's clear that Abraham didn't have only one begotten son.


This is an obvious error. Serious? No...it doesn't change anything of serious doctrine...but it is still an error. It should have been translated "one only", "only son" or "one and only" but to be translated begotten is contradicting scripture because it's clear that he had begotten another son before Isaac. If Isaac was offered before Abraham was begotten then we could say, "Well...at the time when he was offered he was the only begotten son". But we know this isn't true because he was not the only begotten child at that time. You yourself acknowledged that.

Does this mean that God did not preserve his Word? No...God has, every Greek manuscript from which modern translations come and the T.R. contain the word monogenes. The error is in how we translate that word. That is the problem, our translation, not God's Word. I don't believe there is an English Translation that is 100% perfect in it's translation of every single word. That's why it's so cool that as we have so many English translations that have errors, we also have so many tools to help us find those errors, like this discussion board, the internet, books, etc.

Anyways, I guess we can move on to other discussions...I'm sure we'll be able to find something we agree on, lol.
whereas only begotten son settles it it leaves nothing open for debate other than what you think it should be.
Please let me know if I understand you correctly. The phrase or words "only begotten son" leaves no dispute as to his being the only "begotten". What I mean is...are you saying there are no other "begotten sons" in any form?
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

In regards to Issac being the only begotten son of Abraham if we look at it from our perspective or our own eyes one would have to question it. For didn't Abraham have many sons? Not only did he beget many he also could not claim to have a only one son either. Is this passage in error how could God claim Issac as Abraham's only begotten son? But understanding it from Gods point of view it looks clearer. Issac was promised to Abraham by God Himself so much came to pass because of this so my understanding of this passage is that from Gods point of view He looks upon Issac as Abrahams only begotten son, and no other.

Does that make sense to you? Begotten is used to claim and track linage, in otherwords who fathered the child. It is important to know since only one from the house of David may sit on his throne. Was Jesus Gods only begotten son? YES. Is Jesus Gods one and only son? NO. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father Those who believe are his sons by adoption we are not begotten of Him we cannot claim the throne nor can we claim to be equal with Him. Was Issac Abrahams only begotten? From our point of view NO. From Gods point of view it's how he looks upon Issac, YES.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

David,

I admit that whether or not begotten should be used in John 3:16 is trivial.

But here is what I don't understand. Almost anyone would look at this and say "He was not the only begotten". Begotten settles it in Jesus' case but not in this case? What I don't get more than this...is why you believe that if the English translations have any errors in translations then it means God failed. In a case like this verse it's completely obvious to us. Do we really have to say "from Gods eyes it's like it is...". The fact that Abraham begot other sons makes this untrue. Why can't you believe that the Greek texts are without error and somehow between all the fragmented texts God has preserved his word. Do errors in the English translations really mean God didn't preserve his Word? Does the fact that we all became sinners really mean that God failed? No, God did create a perfect man and woman but we then perverted it (the human race). But then God had a wonderful plan to save us in spite of our sinfulness. To me this seems like an obvious error and it appear you want to admit that but then you would feel like you saying God failed. I don't see that by admitting this as an error is saying God failed to preserve His Word.

It really doesn't matter...I mean this doesn't change our salvation. I'm really trying to understand your view but I can't. I once used only one version but things didn't make sense. I would come across verses like this one and something just didn't seem right. So...I would do some research and find out that the translators just didn't have the translation correct. It doesn't mean God failed, it only mean the translators aren't perfect. Things made a lot more sense when I realized that translating from Greek and Hebrew to English relies heavily upon the translators choice of what English word best matches the Greek and Hebrew word. I finally realized that translators are fallible men that will not always make the best choice. Even with God's help we as men will still fall short of perfection.

Anyways, thanks for answering. And thanks for putting up with me, I know I can be annoying, lol.
David
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 2:38 pm
Location: Charleston, SC

Post by David »

wackzingo wrote:David,

I admit that whether or not begotten should be used in John 3:16 is trivial. Sorry again I disagree nothing of Gods word is trivial it is written for a reason and I do not believe it to be an error in translation

But here is what I don't understand. Almost anyone would look at this and say "He was not the only begotten". Begotten settles it in Jesus' case but not in this case? Look at who is doing the talking here, it is written all scripture is given by inspiration of God. It is God who is talking so I understand it as how God views Issac. Read how Abram begat Ishmael first yet God did not see him as the one who should recieve the inheritence as was customary for the first born to recieve. Issac recieved the inheritence he was the one God promised he is the one God views as Abrahams only begotten son no matter what Abram and Sari did.

What I don't get more than this...is why you believe that if the English translations have any errors in translations then it means God failed. I never said God has failed I am saying that He has provided us His word in the english language in this one Book of which I find no error when I read it, only truth and harmony in the scripture. People can claim error but I believe their qualifications for such a claim are like mine ist nicht. On the othehand I know all the men involved in the translation, I know their position and office held, I know which books they were assigned, I know their intent and reasoning, I know their desire and I know their love for their king and King of kings. Its a pretty powerful testimony they have given.

In a case like this verse it's completely obvious to us. Do we really have to say "from Gods eyes it's like it is...". As I said it is God who is talking directly to us through his written word so it makes complete sense to read that verse as how He views Issac not how we view him.

The fact that Abraham begot other sons makes this untrue. From mans perspective or point of view it would seem so. Why do atheists argue and eagerly point out errors? It is a mystery to them and will always remain so until they see their condition and position with God.

Why can't you believe that the Greek texts are without error and somehow between all the fragmented texts God has preserved his word. Because God said he will provide me with the truth not a fragmented truth, missing truths or manuscripts and books where men have change a truth into a lie and as we all know Die Lügen sind wie Schneebälle: je weiter man sie fortwälzt, desto größer werden sie 8)

Do errors in the English translations really mean God didn't preserve his Word? Does the fact that we all became sinners really mean that God failed? No, God did create a perfect man and woman but we then perverted it (the human race). But then God had a wonderful plan to save us in spite of our sinfulness. To me this seems like an obvious error and it appear you want to admit that but then you would feel like you saying God failed. I don't see that by admitting this as an error is saying God failed to preserve His Word. Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at here. But to clarify my position and belief, God does not fail, all things are done according to His will. and no I'm not a calvinist

It really doesn't matter...I mean this doesn't change our salvation. ...for with the heart man believeth unto rightousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

I'm really trying to understand your view but I can't. I once used only one version but things didn't make sense. I would come across verses like this one and something just didn't seem right. So...I would do some research and find out that the translators just didn't have the translation correct. Thats a pretty bold statement , what is your education and qualifications in linguistics, paleography, ancient hebrew, greek, and english languages? How long and where have you studied?

It doesn't mean God failed, it only mean the translators aren't perfect. Things made a lot more sense when I realized that translating from Greek and Hebrew to English relies heavily upon the translators choice of what English word best matches the Greek and Hebrew word. I finally realized that translators are fallible men that will not always make the best choice. Even with God's help we as men will still fall short of perfection. I realize man is fallible but I also believe with all my heart with God no thing shall be impossible if He wants it done His will be done, He promised it.

Anyways, thanks for answering. And thanks for putting up with me, I know I can be annoying, lol.
Das macht mir Kopfzerbrechen :shock:
Last edited by David on Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
wackzingo
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:23 am
Contact:

Post by wackzingo »

David,

You asked in another post:
Do you know if King James I translators had the Alexandrinus, Vatinicus and Sinaticus Manuscripts available to them before 1611? If so why didn't they use them?
The Sinaticus Manuscripts were not discovered until the mid to late 1800's. (I'm not sure the exact date, I think in the 1850's)

The Codex Alexandrinus was discovered around 1600-1620.

The Vaticanus was discovered around the 1400.

The KJV translators relied only upon the Textus Receptus I think. The study of the TR is very interesting.

zach
Locked