To JaySaved:
This is exactly the kind of response I would expect from a “scholar”, from one of the elite. In other words, you are saying that everyone who wants to really understand and know the Bible, must have a total understanding of Greek and Hebrew, as well as a little "Textural Criticism" thrown in to boot. This is a necessity, you say, because only “scholars” can understand and teach God’s Word. Only "scholars" know the real deal.
"I am the LORD, I change not."
Malachi 3:6
[b]We must remember that the Bible is a spiritual book and is understandable to those who are led by God's Spirit. It is not possible for the natural man to understand it [I Corinthians 2:14], hence paraphrasing or simplifying it will do no good.[/b] The Bible is not supposed to read like a fairy tale--Peter said, "for we have not followed cunningly devised fables" [II Peter 1:16]. The words of the Authorized King James are not laborious -- they are beautiful and full of God's power. Even the world knows it--the Authorized King James has been listed on Norton Anthology's list of "the world's best literature" for decades.
In the not so far distant past the Roman Catholic Church made it impossible for the common man to read a Bible. Only the educated Priests and Monks had access to the Bible, and it was a crime, punishable by death, for ANYONE ELSE to read the Bible. It was the job of the Roman Catholic Church to tell the people what the Bible really meant.
[b]When Luther finally broke away from Rome, and had the Bible printed in German for the common man, did he use the text from the corrupt Roman Catholic Bible? No, of course not! He used the text found in early believing Church, that was passed down to us from the first believers at Antioch in the 1st Century, and is drastically different than the corrupt text that was used to create the Roman Catholic Bible---the same corrupt text used to create the Roman Catholic Bible was used to create the 1881 "Revised New Testament" by Westcott & Hort---the same corrupt text that has been used as the basis of every new "Bible version" since 1881
(the NIV, NASB,The Message,etc, etc. etc.):
[/b]
[b]A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE AND ITS GREEK TEXT:[/b]
I. Believers at Antioch (1st. century)
A. The believers in Antioch were the first to be called "Christians" (Acts 11:26).
B. Since Antioch is in Syria, they translated the Bible into Old Syrian. This Bible agrees with the KJB and not the Catholic line of mss.
C. The believers at Antioch copied the Scriptures in both Syrian and Greek on papyrus (a paper-like material).
II. Believers in Greece (1st.-3rd. century)
A. They used the Greek text of Antioch and rejected the Greek text of Alexandria Egypt as corrupt. (Fuller, p. 194-215).
B. This is the church which departed from Rome and the Catholic church in the 4th century. History shows that the text of the KJB always goes away from the Roman Catholic Church. This being a historical fact, then why go back to Rome to make a new translation?
C. These believers copied Scripture on papyrus in both Greek and Old Latin (not Jerome's Latin Vulgate, but Old Latin). This Bible was translated in 150 A.D. and agrees in its text with the KJB, not the modern translations.
III. Believers in Northern Italy (3rd.-12th century)
A. They copied and used the Old Latin Bible and rejected the vulgate as corrupt.
B. These believers were called "Waldensens" and were known for the evangelism they did and the street preaching.
C. During the Inquisitions by the Catholic church, the Waldensens were the believers who were put to death (see "Foxe's Book of Martyr's")
IV. Believers in Early England and France (2nd.-17th. century)
A. They used the Old Latin Bible of the Waldensens as the official translation. They also copied the Greek text which later came to be called the Receptus.
B. These believers were very evangelistic and suffered much under Rome.
V.[b] Erasmus (1466-1536 A.D.)
A. Erasmus compiled the Greek mss. of the believers in Greece, Italy, England, and France and the Old Syrian and Latin translations to produce the Greek N.T. the Reformers used.
B. Note, this was the Greek text of the Reformation. This line always goes away from Rome.
VI. Luther (16th. century)
A. Luther translated the Bible into German using the text of Erasmus. He rejected the Greek text of the Catholic church (the text modern translations use).
B. Luther was the father of the Reformation.
VII. The King James Bible (1611)
A. The N.T. was translated off the Greek text of the Reformation. The translators rejected Jerome's Vulgate and the Catholic Bible.[/b]
B. The translators were men of God who knew their task. Note the following concerning a few of the translators of the Y-M.
1. Dr. Lansalot Andrews He was the chairman. He spoke 20 languages. He spent 5 hours a day in prayer. (see E. M. Bound, "Power Through Prayer" p. 33).
2. Dr. John Reynolds, Puritan leader. He spoke Hebrew and Greek as well as he could English by the time he was 18 years old.
3. Dr. John Boise He spoke Hebrew by the time he was 5 Years old. By the time he was 14 years old he spoke Greek. He spent from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. studying each day.
4. Dr. Miles Smiths: He spoke Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic as well as he could English. He also served with Dr. Thomas Bilson as one of the two final editors of the whole King James Bible.
5. Dr. William Bedwell: He was called the father of Arabic studies in England. He wrote Lexicons in Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac and Chaldean. (Note: a Lexicon is like a Dictionary telling the meaning of words and their root meaning).
6. Dr. Thomas Holland: Not only was he a great Hebrew and Greek scholar, but a man of great dedication to God. His dying words were, "Come, 0 come, Lord Jesus, Thou Morning Star! Come, Lord Jesus; I desire to be dissolved and to be with Thee."
7. Dr. Laurence Chaderton: He was noted for his knowledge of Latin, Hebrew and Greek. He also spoke French, Spanish, and Italian ' Because of his Christian faith his father cut him off from his family. People enjoyed his preaching so much that they would beg him to preach even after he had just preached a two hour sermon! He was committed to personal witnessing. He said of his household servants, "I desire as much to have my servants know the Lord as myself."
8. All the translators of the KJB suffered under the reign of Queen Mary (also called "Bloody Mary") before James became King of England. This is the only Bible committee to suffer persecution of their faith.
NOTE: For more information on the above translators and the others, see "Which Bible?" pp. 13-24, or the book by Dr. Gustavus S. Paine, "The Men Behind The KJB"
C. The text of the KJB is the same today as it was in 1611.
D. The translators of the KJB believed they translated the pure word of God.
[b]E. The Greek text of the KJB is based on the majority of all Greek mss. and the line of Bible Believers throughout Church history.
F. The KJB is the Bible of the Great Awakening, the Well's Revival, the preaching of Edwards, Wesley, Moody, Carry, Hudson Taylor, Sunday, Spurgeon, etc., and every major revival from 1611 until now! No modern translation (or its Greek text) can make the same claim.
Matthew 12:33 "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known of his fruit."[/b]
1. The tree of the modern translation is corrupt, how can the translation be good?
2. The tree of the KJB is pure, how can the translation be bad?
[b]3. The fruit of the KJB is Reformation and Revival, not Rome.
4. The modern translation says it is with error, the KJB says it is without error. Which one would you want to read???[/b]
5. The Bible always calls for choices (Josh. 24:15); this is also true in reading a Bible translation. You must choose which one you will read. Do so, not by what men say, but by the Word of God
God is unchangeable. God's word is unchangeable too. In Matthew 24:35, the Lord Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
[b]Who was God's Word translated for?
Answer? The common man. [/b]
Sincerely,
Walter
:-)
JaySaved wrote:
“…It is written in Isaiah the prophet…”
I have no problem with the accuracy of the translation from the Alexandrian text-based MSS from which the NIV was TRANSLATED. It is no doubt a correct and accurate TRANSLATION OF the Alexandrian text.The problem is that the words quoted in the NIV’s 2nd and 3rd verses ARE NOT ALL FROM THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
These words were obviously translated from bogus manuscripts.
Actually, if you think about it, wouldn't it make more sense to say that the later copyists altered the words "in Isaiah the prophet" (a reading found in the earliest representative witnesses of the Alexandrian and the Western types of text) to the more comprehensive introductory formula "in the prophets"?
As to any issues concerning the inerrancy of scripture please see A.T. Robertson's notes on this passage:
In Isaiah, the prophet (en tōi Esaiāi tōi prophētēi). The quotation comes from Mal_3:1 and Isa_40:3. The Western and Neutral classes read Isaiah, the Alexandrian and Syrian, “the prophets,” an evident correction because part of it is from Malachi. But Isaiah is mentioned as the chief of the prophets. It was common to combine quotations from the prophets in testimonia and catenae (chains of quotations). This is Mark’s only prophetic quotation on his own account (Bruce).
FYI: I used Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament for this response. I recommend it to all who desire to know why the modern translations made the changes they made.[url=http://www.amazon.com/Textual-Commentary-Greek-New-Testament/dp/1598561642/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235353574&sr=8-1]Link to Book[/url]
