John Calvin was a False Teacher

railfan727

Well-Known Member
I love the King James for purposes of memorization--it sticks in the mind much better than the more modern translations. But, it is difficult to get young Christians to comprehend the KJV--especially the epistles.
The thing that bothers me greatly about the modern translations is the missing content... many key verses or even entire chapters are relegated to the footnotes or completely omitted altogether! A good compromise that I've found is the KJV Easy Read. All the content of the KJV but in modern language.
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
The thing that bothers me greatly about the modern translations is the missing content... many key verses or even entire chapters are relegated to the footnotes or completely omitted altogether! A good compromise that I've found is the KJV Easy Read. All the content of the KJV but in modern language.
I didn't know there was such a thing! I have said, for years, that what we need is a word-for-word, KJV in modern language (as much as possible). It's been a long time since I looked for a new Bible--maybe today's the day!
 

Tall Timbers

Imperfect but forgiven
Not for me. I have been studying scripture for many years, and try as I might, the old language does not work for me. I have a few King James bibles, and occasionally I will look up certain scriptures, but never to study with it.

Yeah, I prefer a translation in my own language. I do own copies of the KJV and the NKJV. They're Open Bibles and I have them not for the version but for the encyclopedic indexes they include. I keep one upstairs and one downstairs (color me lazy). I used to use thos aides frequently. Now I'm more likely to just do an internet search on whatever it is I'm looking for. When the Bible is banned from the internet then I'll still have my hard copy resources that I can return to.
 

Tall Timbers

Imperfect but forgiven
The thing that bothers me greatly about the modern translations is the missing content... many key verses or even entire chapters are relegated to the footnotes or completely omitted altogether! A good compromise that I've found is the KJV Easy Read. All the content of the KJV but in modern language.

As more old manuscripts have been discovered, it appears that some scribes added a bit here and there, I believe that's the reason why bits and pieces that were once included are now excluded. It's a valid reason for the change.
 

railfan727

Well-Known Member
As more old manuscripts have been discovered, it appears that some scribes added a bit here and there, I believe that's the reason why bits and pieces that were once included are now excluded. It's a valid reason for the change.
We also need to consider whether the manuscripts come from Alexandria or Antioch. The Alexandria ones are known to be corrupt...
 

seated with Christ

Well-Known Member
The only translation (translated from the original tongue) is the Kjv, and it's based on the oldest copies with the previous works (Bibles) considered.

I better cease and desist. :)
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
The Septuigen was translated in Alexandra as well.
But the Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew Tanakh by Jewish scholars much earlier than the later corruption of the Scriptures by the Alexandrian Gnostics.

Jewish scholars had VERY elaborate rituals for ensuring accuracy in their copies. If the tiniest bit of error was made, the entire scroll had to be destroyed and recopied (they even had to bathe because they would have been contaminated by "defiling" the work with their error). They were just as meticulous in their translation of the Hebrew into the Koine Greek of the Septuagint (also known as the LXX--for the 70 Hebrew scholars who were asked to do the work). The tradition among the Jewish scholars of that day is that there were six separate translations done by the teams of scholars comprising the 70 scholars--all of them miraculously identical to each other. The reason why the work on the Septuagint was done in Alexandria is because they were hired by Ptolemy II Philadelphus to do the translation, so that it could be included in the Library of Alexandria. At its height, the Library of Alexandria was said to have possessed 400,000 scrolls. Under the Roman Empire, it waned in importance and deteriorated. A later Coptic Christian King of Egypt ordered what was left of the Library destroyed.
 

mattfivefour

Administrator
Staff member
We also need to consider whether the manuscripts come from Alexandria or Antioch. The Alexandria ones are known to be corrupt...
Respectfully, brother, the Alexandrian manuscripts are NOT corrupt in the usual sense of the word. This is yet another distortion that the KJV Only people have managed to cost on the unsuspecting. If you want a good offerings of the truth about manuscripts (including the KJV) I suggest reading this excellent article by theologian James R White's excellent book: The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?, Baker, 1995, ISBN 978-1-55661-575-7
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
Respectfully, brother, the Alexandrian manuscripts are NOT corrupt in the usual sense of the word. This is yet another distortion that the KJV Only people have managed to cost on the unsuspecting. If you want a good offerings of the truth about manuscripts (including the KJV) I suggest reading this excellent article by theologian James R White's excellent book: The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?, Baker, 1995, ISBN 978-1-55661-575-7
We should probably warn that James R. White is a Calvinist and says so. Here is an excellent article by Randy Alcorn that discusses the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism: https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Jan/30/where-do-you-stand-calvinism-and-arminianism-debat/ Isn't citing a Calvinist a problem here on this website? Just sayin' :)
 

mattfivefour

Administrator
Staff member
We should probably warn that James R. White is a Calvinist and says so. Here is an excellent article by Randy Alcorn that discusses the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism: https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Jan/30/where-do-you-stand-calvinism-and-arminianism-debat/ Isn't citing a Calvinist a problem here on this website? Just sayin' :)
His article on manuscripts has absolutely nothing to do with Calvinist beliefs. They play no part in that discussion. If we want to eliminate every Calvinist, we would have to eliminate almost every great preacher in history, including John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progress), John Gill, Adoniram Judson, Charles Spurgeon, Andrew Murray, William Carey, Andrew Fuller, etc, etc, etc. What we stand against are the modem Calvinists (actually they're hyperCalvinists) who have taken man's responsibility entirely out of the picture and have turned the God of grace and mercy into a self-willed despot.
 

Wings Like Eagles

Well-Known Member
His article on manuscripts has absolutely nothing to do with Calvinist beliefs. They play no part in that discussion. If we want to eliminate every Calvinist, we would have to eliminate almost every great preacher in history, including John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progress), John Gill, Adoniram Judson, Charles Spurgeon, Andrew Murray, William Carey, Andrew Fuller, etc, etc, etc. What we stand against are the modem Calvinists (actually they're hyperCalvinists) who have taken man's responsibility entirely out of the picture and have turned the God of grace and mercy into a self-willed despot.
I totally agree with you but when I cited Erwin Lutzer's excellent defense of the Bible as the true word of God, which had NOTHING to do with Calvinist theology, the thread was terminated as being "from a Calvinist". Lutzer is no more of a Calvinist than is James R. White (and, in saying this, I am in no way denigrating White, whom I consider to be a brother in the faith--even if I do disagree with some of what he apparently believes). I personally believe that the Bible tells us to "...examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good..." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and trust the Holy Spirit within, to guide us. (1 John 2 but especially 1 John 2:27)
 

athenasius

Well-Known Member
No--we don't have the original Greek texts but it is likely that the Greek Fathers may have had access to them before they crumbled into dust.
They did, they quoted extensively from those original manuscripts and their quotes exist and predate the so called earliest manuscripts. One of the reasons may be that good copies were used, while mistake ridden copies were set aside, and inadvertently preserved.
 
Top