|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 21, 2009 8:22:22 GMT -5
I also believe the KJV is without error. For real? I've never heard that belief before. Do you mean the original KJV? Or all subsequent editions? Why do you believe that? What about people that don't read English? Are their Bibles without error? How do they aquire a KJV in their language since it is an English translation? teresa I asked that too..."which" KJV (since there are over 40 different versions with different wordings). There can only be one. And when the KJV's translation doesn't match up to Koine Greek/Jewish translations because of the impossibility of Jewish/Greek words being translated into English, which one does a Christian choose? The "new" version? Or the original? And if they are to choose the "new" version when it differs from the original texts, then isn't this literally going against Revelations when it talks about adding or subtracting from scripture? I think this deserves a thread... BRB!  Okay, here's a new thread on the infallibility question of The King James Version of The Holy Bible... fideidefensor.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=scripture&thread=542&page=1 |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 21, 2009 13:26:18 GMT -5
No, you missed the point. These verses are in the KJV but NOT found in the earliest manuscripts. It is not comparing the NIV with the KJV.
Which manuscripts are more reliable, earlier ones or later ones? I hope it's obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 21, 2009 13:39:35 GMT -5
depends, there were many original manuscripts. A small portion of those were used for the NIV and other versions...the majority of the manuscripts were used for the KJV.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 21, 2009 13:52:32 GMT -5
When I say "original manuscript" what I mean is the actual, original parchment(or whatever they used) that St. Paul, St. Peter, St. Matthew etc. wrote on. Those are the original manuscripts. Nobody has the originals (if they do, I really hope they bring them out of hiding). But, faithful Christians copied these letters and then copied those copies etc. because the actual pieces of paper do not last very long. If I'm not mistaken, the earliest manuscript (which is a copy, not the original) is from the late 2nd century. Many of the other manuscripts are from later centuries. (Right now, I'm talking only about the New Testament by the way)
Sometimes people discover texts that are more ancient, and therefore presumably more reliable because there is less chance that a copying error could occur.
As far as the Old Testament goes, the earliest manuscripts (I think) are the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those were discovered in the Mid- 20th century. Before that, people would have used slightly later manuscripts because that was all they had. Do you see what I'm saying? It's not the translators fault if that is all they have though. I really think that the KJV translators did a superb job based on what texts they used.
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 22, 2009 10:53:09 GMT -5
When I say "original manuscript" what I mean is the actual, original parchment(or whatever they used) that St. Paul, St. Peter, St. Matthew etc. wrote on. Those are the original manuscripts. Nobody has the originals (if they do, I really hope they bring them out of hiding). But, faithful Christians copied these letters and then copied those copies etc. because the actual pieces of paper do not last very long. If I'm not mistaken, the earliest manuscript (which is a copy, not the original) is from the late 2nd century. Many of the other manuscripts are from later centuries. (Right now, I'm talking only about the New Testament by the way) Sometimes people discover texts that are more ancient, and therefore presumably more reliable because there is less chance that a copying error could occur. As far as the Old Testament goes, the earliest manuscripts (I think) are the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those were discovered in the Mid- 20th century. Before that, people would have used slightly later manuscripts because that was all they had. Do you see what I'm saying? It's not the translators fault if that is all they have though. I really think that the KJV translators did a superb job based on what texts they used. teresa If I'm correct, The Eastern Orthodox Church has the "oldest" texts in existance. And they match the texts that The Catholic Church has (their only separated by a few years). Ramon should be able to clear this up though when he gets back. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 22, 2009 11:05:21 GMT -5
depends, there were many original manuscripts. A small portion of those were used for the NIV and other versions...the majority of the manuscripts were used for the KJV. How did they get access to these manuscripts? Did either The Catholic Church or The Orthodox Church give them access? |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 22, 2009 13:16:40 GMT -5
I have no idea. Maybe they stole them...or parts of them. Maybe someone had a heart and gave them what they could. Not sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 22, 2009 13:59:40 GMT -5
Hehe, you're funny Emily.
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 22, 2009 14:07:37 GMT -5
........?
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 24, 2009 18:04:17 GMT -5
I meant that as a compliment.
It just made me laugh at the thought that anyone would ever consider stealing manuscripts of the Bible in order to translate it.
That reminds me of something that happened to me in Turkey. I was in a Church, eating lunch with our missionary friends and these teenage boys were there. All of a sudden, they got up and left and were laughing as they left. I later realized that my purse was gone. (Ok, I can't prove they did it, but it seemed pretty obvious at the time). Anyway, they probably thought they were going to get a bunch of money from American tourists or credit cards or something. My wallet was back at the flat we were staying with, so all that was in my purse was a few Turkish lira(not worth much), some makeup and a big stack of pamphets that explained the gospel in Turkish and invited people to that Church! I definitely got the last laugh, and I think just maybe God was pleased with the outcome as well.
peace
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 24, 2009 18:24:42 GMT -5
Lol, well as we all know, Christians aren't perfect people.
I would do some illegal things if it meant keeping my Bible. Like hiding it if it were to become illegal to have one, etc.
That's an annoying but funny story (annoying=it would be annoying if it happened to me)
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Apr 24, 2009 20:31:19 GMT -5
Actually, it is illegal in Turkey to try to "convert" anyone that is under 18.
I'm pretty sure those boys were not Christians, they just like to "hang out" at that Church sometimes-- partly because the missionaries fed them some times.
I'm pretty sure that God drawing them in though.
Yeah, that would not be cool if America got to the point where Bibles were illegal.
It may soon come to the point where the Church will have to do illegal things for the cause of ending abortion (actually, we're probably past that point). I mean just protests and stuff, nothing bad or violent. Civil disobedience--like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
teresa
|
|
