Genesis was written by biased men.

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


My friend, I already did in my post above: The last time I answered your question. there are two links, the first one is the most important, it will give you a brief history of where the modern Bible versions manuscripts came from. And who "authored" those corrupt manuscripts.




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You can't possibly mean the KJV?



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.

2 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.

1 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, 2 Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

1 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?"

2 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.

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

1 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."

1 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.


source: www.biblestudy.org...



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


You don't get it man, of course people will say there are translation errors in the KJV, because they are comparing it to the Textus Vinaticus and Textus Sinaticus.

It was never translated from those manuscripts, it was translated from the textus Receptus, or "received text". that's why I said the modern versions are great translations, the big error is that they were translated from corrupt manuscripts, manuscripts the first Christians outright rejected becasue they were heretical.

Did you read the history, or lineage if you will, of the Textus Vinaticus and Sinaticus? They came from pagans and Gnostics in Alexandria Egypt.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 


Did you read this in your link??:


"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!



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Nichiren



You don't get it man, of course people will say there are translation errors in the KJV, because they are comparing it to the Textus Vinaticus and Textus Sinaticus.


No, the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus ( I think that's what you meant) never came into play. They explicitly compare the KJV to the "Received Text", also known as "Syrian", "Antioch", or Koine text. You jumped the gun there.


It was never translated from those manuscripts, it was translated from the textus Receptus, or "received text". that's why I said the modern versions are great translations, the big error is that they were translated from corrupt manuscripts, manuscripts the first Christians outright rejected becasue they were heretical.


What is dogmatic or heretical would be a fine subject for another discussion. But there is no contest here: Richard Nickels and I know that the KJV is based on the koine text.


Did you read the history, or lineage if you will, of the Textus Vinaticus and Sinaticus? They came from pagans and Gnostics in Alexandria Egypt.


Yes I'm aware of the history of the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Your second statement is so loaded with bias that I will not address it at this time.

Again, please point me to a link of a pure Bible. It is obvious that, although they meant well, the KJV is not 100% accurate and the word of God must not be changed.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Nichiren
 


Did you read this in your link??:


"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!


Yes, I'm glad you asked. I also read the following statement in the same article. It's the final blow regarding the accuracy of the KJV. And remember the author is actually a defender of the KJV, but to his credit he is intellectually honest.



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.(emphasis mine)


So the Latin text that you so despise found its way into the KJV.

Again, God's word must not be changed. Where can it be found?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Nichiren
 
No my friend, thee are two Latin versions. I despise "Jerome's Latin Vulgate", the KJB translators didn't use Jerome's Vulgate, they translated from The "Old Latin" Bible.

Jerome was one of the Pagans and Gnostics from Origen's school in Alexandria Egypt.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Groupies

Just to clarify---the only GREEK texts that the King James panel used (by the way the 1611 version had to be emended and corrected more than two times in the SAME year it was printed, owing to numerous errors) was A and D (i.e. Codex Alexendrinus and Codex Bezae Biglot, aka D, the socalled Western Codex).

Jerome used what he had of the LXX Greek Septuaginta to translate whatever Greek texts he could get into the Latin of his day (AD 360) but he like Origen before him had at least 5 different Greek versioins of the OT (i.e. the proto-LXX, the LXX of Theodotion, the LXX of Symmachus, the LXX of Aquila etc.) from which to choose...so his text is considered 'highly eclectic' today--even though his is sometimes called the 'Textus Receptus' (as if it were the ONE and ONLY 'received' text !)

For the New Testament, the KJV panel in 1615-1620 AD had NO access to the later discovered Greek Uncials of the NT i.e. Codex Sinaiticus, or the Codex Ephraemi (C), or the Codex Vaticanus (B) or the Freer Codex (aka Codex Washingtoniensis, W) and none of the earliest papyri from which to base their 'edition'. For the Old Testament, the ONLY used the pointed Masoretic Version (from a SINGLE MS in Leningrad, with arbitrary vowells added by thge Masoretes in the year 960AD) and had NO access to the Dead Sea Scroll versions (hand copied between BC 250 and AD 68), or the Vorlag to the Greek LXX (i.e. the Hebrew underlay to the Septuaginta from BC 200), or the SamPent (i.e. the Samaritan Pentateuch from c. 380 BCE)-- so even their OT is tainted by ONE SINGLE family of MSS.

The KJV (King James Version) is therefore quite out of date, and fairly useless today -- although there have been many attempts to incorporate later findings into it (manuscript copied out by hand are now called 'ancient authorities' just like they were people !)

Even today textual scholars (like Bart Erhman, who writes for a general public, unlike most of the others !) pull out their hair because we are STILL lacking almost all of the earlier MSS (few are still in one piece) and the Greek Uncial Codices ALEPH, B, C, D and W &tc. all date from the late 3rd early 4th century onwards-- long after the texts became 'standardised' by the likes of groups like Iraneaus' at Lyons) -- most of the papyri &tc. are from Egypt and are fragments of longer texts no longer extant...unless still buried somewhere !

Either way, the King James Version did the best they could for the early 17th century -- but unfortunately it just was not good enough to be used today...anyone who claims to 'believe every word of the Bible' will first have to grapple with at least 4 versions of the Old Testament, and 5446 Greek MSS of the New Testament, no two of which are exactly alike...

So 'which Bible' (exactly) do they claim to 'believe in,' one wonders, especially if they can't even read the original languages in which these texts were written--and therefore are NOT CONVERSANT with the complexities and nuances of hand-copied texts in antiquity in different scribal schools who had access to different families of MSS (and not others, for example) and all of whom had their own Agendas to support in coyping (and sometimes heavilly editing) the texts in front of them ...

Anyone who denies this is either a LIAR or simply is NOT ACQUAINTED with all the relevant facts of the matter...



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Sigismundus
 


I don't think NOTurTypical will recover from that one LOL.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum