What version Bible do you read?

[Last Things]

Obviously, you have failed to define “inspiration” here.

The root of inspiration is spirit. What does the word of God say about inspiration?

I do not see how the root of spirit means that God literally wrote the bible word for word. The bible never calls it ‘the words of God’.

When a Greek word is defined in a lexicon, it is invariably the Greek word in the corrupt Greek text of Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society, not the Greek word seen in Received Text Bibles and any edition of the Textus Receptus. Since most who use these tools do not know the differences between these two text types at every point and cannot really read the Greek words, they will be unaware that they are being given the definition of the wrong Greek word! For example, Rev. 15:3 says, “King of saints” in the KJB and the Received Text. The corrupt texts and modern versions say either “King of ages” or “King of nations.” Therefore the lexicon’s definition will be given for the Greek word aion (e.g. ages, NIV) or ethnos (e.g. nations, NASB), not the Greek word, hagios (saints, KJB). For this reason alone, all lexicons and Bible study ‘helps’ should be buried to prevent the spread of their deadly hazards. This includes all lexicons, as well as all Greek grammar books. Complete autopsies of their dead works are available to the truth seeker.

Interlinear authors and many others are confusing the original Greek and Hebrew with the ENGLISH words in the corrupt lexicons and grammars that they use. For example, Newberry (Berry’s (Newberry’s) Interlinear) speaks of the “beauties, accuracies, and perfections of the Inspired Original,” contrasted with what he calls the “ordinary English Bible.” He repeatedly hammers about the “dull” English as opposed to the “rich” original language. (Newberry, pp. 667, 937) However, now that the bait is on the hook, it is time for the switch. He switches the Greek and Hebrew text for an ENGLISH lexicon written by an unsaved liberal, who translated a German Lexicon, which originated with a Latin-Greek one. How does Newberry expect to give a literal translation of what he refers to as the “perfections of the Inspired Originals,” using the ENGLISH of corrupt lexicons?

What you are basically saying here is that if the KJV translates a word that disagrees with a lexicon, then it is the lexicon that is wrong.
The word in the Textus Receptus for Revelation 15:3 is ethnos, NOT hagios (αἰώνων = aionon) . Elsewhere the KJV translates the same word as ‘nations’.

The choice remains: whose English words will you trust - the English words in lexicons written by unsaved liberals or the English words in the Holy Bible?

You mean English words translated by a group of men that we have no evidence we infallibly translating as opposed to anyone else.

Both are English. The answer is logical. No “scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:19-21). The words “interpretation” and “interpreted” are used in the New Testament to mean translation or translated, ‘going from one language to another.’ Observe all of the New Testament usages:

- Matt. 1:23 “Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
- Mark 5:41 “Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.”
- Mark 15:22 “Golgatha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.”
- Mark 15:34 “Eloi, Eloi, lama Sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
- John 1:38 “Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master)”
- John 1:41 “Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.”
- Acts 4:36 “Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation)”
- John 1:42 “Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone”
- John 9:7 “Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent)”
- Acts 9:36 “Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Doreas”
- Acts 13:8 “Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation)”
- 1 Cor. 12:10 “to another the interpretation of tongues:”
- 1 Cor. 14:26 “...hath an interpretation...”
- Heb. 7:1, 2 “For this Melchisedec, king of Salem...first being by interpretation King of righteousness and after that also King of Salem, which is King of peace...”

All of these uniform usages establish the New Testament meaning of ‘interpretation.’ It will not change now in its last usage in 2 Peter 1:19-21. It still means to go from one language to another. (In the New Testament ‘interpretation’ does not mean ‘what someone ‘thinks’ a verse means.’)

“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of an: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:19-21).

The precedence was established that only one could interpret.

- 1 Cor. 12:30, 14:27 “do all interpret?...let one interpret.”

Therefore one Holy Bible for each language is THE interpreter.

And that one is the KJV, how? Prophesy is not the same as translation, so I do not see any support for your assumption.

The Bible’s built-in dictionary is defining “prophecy” as “word” or “scripture.”

Built in dictionary? Or you just redefining words to your liking?

Using the New Testament’s usage of “interpretation,” it appears that since the original “scripture” came “as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” then its interpretation (translation) cannot be “private,” or “by the will of man,” but also must be “by the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2).

Interpretation is not synonymous with translation. In the verses you mention it is about saying what scripture implies theologically. Private interpretation means just that – private interpretation. How you get ‘public translation’ is quite perplexing to me.

The latter portion of the verse is not speaking directly of written scripture, since it says, “men of God spake,” not wrote. But God is making a parallel which indicates that the “interpretation” (translation) of “scripture” is not to be private, as seen in lexicons. If there ever was a verse that inferred the direct intervention of God in the translation of the Bible, this is it. Acts 2 reiterates.

“Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Gen. 40: 8)

And the KJV is officially endored by God according to what? And which version. There are four you know.

Studying the English Bible will reveal how God uses English words to speak to the English reader’s mind and heart. A lengthy trip to the libraries of Greece, via Germany and Rome is not necessary. The Holy Bible is a living book, and like all living things, it lives in the light of daily use, not in dusty libraries. Newberry charges,

“In the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures there are precisions, perfections, and beauties which cannot be reproduced in any translation.”

Yet how is his “translation” in Berry’s Interlinear or Berry’s lexicon, not imperfect like the “translation” in a Holy Bible? It is an English translation also. Someone is not thinking.

I noticed you copied most of this post from another forum. Are you cut and pasting your post or another person? At any rate you are now repeating a discuss you had with another person that has nothing to do with me.
BTW- A lexicon is not a translation. It is a tool in the translation process.

After nearly 1000 years of English Bibles, why would the only perfect “translations” of words still be in interlinears and lexicons and not in a Bible? Historically the only one who clams to be the interpreter of the Bible is the Catholic church. Hmmmmmm. That rebellious spirit, which would usurp the authority of God’s one interpreter - the Holy Bible, is not exclusive to the hierarchy of the Catholic system, but is also driving those who wrote and use lexicons and interlinears.

Again, something said to another person originally, not me. I will respond anyways-
The Catholic Church does not necessarily claim to be the interpreter of the bible. This claim comes from a very protestant understanding of scripture and church. During the reformation, protestants believe that one constructed doctrines or theologies from interpreting the bible. Thus, what one believes and teaches is based on (an interpretation of) the bible. Thus, every pastor may have slightly different beliefs based on their interpretation. For Catholics, it is believe that what is believed was always believed – what the apostles taught. That in fact scripture comes from what was taught, which is what is believed. Thus, the faith is not based on the bible, but the bible on the faith.
I see the bible as a revelation of God, not so much an interpretation of God. I do wonder on what basis you can claim that the KJV is the only valid translation? At the end of the day, the KJV was a translation. A translation of the Textus Receptus, which was compiled by taking all the manuscripts that were available at the time and creating a single Greek text by using what version of a word or passage was used most by manuscripts.

Tell us who the ‘editor’ is of your Textus Receptus and I will document here a mechanism by which you have come under deception.

That would be Textus Receptus. You do know it is widely available, right? I know in the post that you are cut and pasting your material (be it yours or anothers) for some reason they mistakenly assumed the TR was not available. It is available online, check it out.

“Original language”??? God doesn’t care about any “original language,” so why should we?

I have only mentioned the Greek in response to you using the Greek as an argument for the KJV. You said the language of the KJV more correctly captures the Greek. I pointed out how this did not make sense, to which you now say the Greek does not matter.

The topic of Bible inspiration and infallibility can only be discussed with reference to actual words and verses. A fog of emotional steam, that carries no substance, precedes comments such as, 'I don't believe the KJV corrects 'the original Greek' or 'I don't believe the KJV corrects the 'Majority Text' or the ‘Textus Receptus.’ The desire to appear intelligent or superior by referring to 'the Greek' and downplaying the common man's Bible, exposes a naivety concerning textual history and those documents which today's pseudo-intellectuals call 'the critical text,' 'the original Greek,' the 'Majority Text,' or the ‘Textus Receptus.’

Again, I responded to your arguments from the Greek.

 

[Last Things]

oops, double post

 

[lawrenceb]

I do not see how the root of spirit means that God literally wrote the bible word for word. The bible never calls it ‘the words of God’.

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly..." (1 Tim. 4:1) KJB

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16 KJB)

What does "given by inspiration" mean? What is "All scripture"? I will begin will a discussion of the Greek text, only because that is where this discussion usually, and I might add, somewhat incorrectly begins. This will not come from the standard corrupt secularized lexicons and critical editions (such as Strong, Vine, Zodhiates, Moulton, Milligan, Thayer, Wuest, Trench, Vincent, Liddell, Scott, Persbacher, Gesenius, Brown, Driver, Briggs, Scrivener, Berry, Beza, Westcott, Hort, Aland, Metzger, Green, and Ginsburg - all are proven unreliable in various degrees).

The Greek word "theopneustos" is translated "is given by inspiration of God." The first part of the word is theo which means "God." The second part, from pneuma, is almost always translated as "spirit" (322 times; 91 times as 'Ghost' or ghost; once as 'wind,' once as 'life,' and never as 'breath' or 'breathed'). Given the vast preponderance of the translation of this Greek word into English as "spirit," it is logically translated with the English "spir," as seen in the word "inspiration." The use of the word 'spir," meaning "spirit," lines up perfectly with John 6:63, where Jesus defines his words. He said,

"[T]he words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

In other words, the word of God is not just ink on paper, like other books; its words are "spirit." Since the spirit of God is alive, his words are also alive. Consequently John 6:63 concludes that the word of God is "life."

Breath is tangible; the spirit is not tangible. Those who are afraid to call the KJB "inspired" are wrongly focused on the physical character of Strong's or Moulton's erring definition, "breathe"; they know that God did close the canon and stopped the physical sign gifts. But God's "Spirit" is still striving with man, comforting man, and leading man into all truth. God never said the Spirit would not translate the canon; he did provide for this in Acts 2 when "every man heard them speak in his own language" from "every nation under heaven." Although the Greek word pneuma can be seen in secular English as 'pneumonia' and 'pneumatic,' both relating to air, its Biblical usage is exclusively as 'spirit,' never as 'breathe.' Even Hodge, as noted in Augustus Strong's Systematic Theology on p. 198 admitted that 'spirit' is the correct correlative.

Not surprisingly, corrupt new bible versions, such as the NIV, replace "inspiration" with the secular word "breathed," thereby erasing the root 'spir' and its connection to the Spirit of God. The Calvinist produced English Standard Version (ESV) similarly says "breathed out" (yet the word "out" also appears in no Greek texts).

The word in the Textus Receptus for Revelation 15:3 is ethnos, NOT hagios (αἰώνων = aionon) . Elsewhere the KJV translates the same word as ‘nations’.

That depends; do you know which “Textus Receptus” are you referencing i.e. who is its ‘editor’? (Many use a Greek New Testament (Textus Receptus variety) edited by Church of England vicar, Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener (A.D. 1813-1891). We could examine the aberrant beliefs about the Bible and the grave omissions he recommended for this English Revised Version (RV) of 1881. Today, Scrivener’s Revised Version is nowhere to be found and has been abandoned for several generations, its corrupt editors and its omissions having been exposed.)

BTW, God has no use for any “originals,” otherwise he would have made certain that we had them today. Rather, the question remains, has God kept his promise?

The posted falsehood (the presumed necessity of a 'scholarly' search for the elusive "original") panders to the flesh and has resulted in much hemmoraghing within the Body of Christ via counterfeit versions.

For example, the NIV does not come from the overwhelming majority of texts (aka the Majority Text). Indeed, there is no modern English Bible translation which does! Rather, the NIV is based on the less than 1% of manuscripts (the "Minority Text") which have been exhaustively documented and rejected as corrupt. The NIV is no Holy Bible.

And what about this Majority Text? The survival of ‘the’ original Greek New Testament is a dream which dissolves with the discovery that not all manuscripts and critical editions are alike. Those applying this term to a Greek text on the bookstore shelf or internet site are unacquainted with the volatile state of the text.

There are over 5366 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. A corrupt few give a view of the text much like a shifting kaleidoscope. They contain several hundred thousand variant readings. In an attempt to marry these ‘moody’ manuscripts, the ‘Wheel of Fortune’ is whirled and readings are selected for inclusion in what scholars call a ‘critical edition of the Greek text.’ There are more than two dozen of these texts, each a ‘prize’ stuffed with between 5000 and 8000 variations. As one scholar puts it, “...equally competent critics often arrive at contrary conclusions as to the same variation.”

The overwhelming majority (over 99%) of these manuscripts, lectionaries and writers agree generally with each other as to the readings of the New Testament. Manuscripts from the second century (P66) down through the Middle Ages (A.D. 1500) attest to the readings of this 'Majority Text', as Kurt Aland terms it. Dean Burgeon, who found this 'Majority Text' in most of the early writers collated, calls it "The Traditional Text.' It is also called the Syrian Text, the Byzantine Text and the K (Kappa) or Common Text.

This text type is available today in English in the Authorized Version, or as it is called in the United States, the King James Version. It's 809,000,000 copies since 1611, in 300 languages, demonstrates the continuum of this 'Majority Text'. (Unfortunately, the new versions are not based on this "Majority Text', but on the dissenting handful of manuscripts (less than 1%) which disagree with the Majority).

In keeping with his promise, God's vernacular (i.e. common) Bible has always "come down from heaven ready-made (as it were)."

The KJB text-type is not to be confused with today's KJ Bible. Today, as the vernacular Bible it is, the KJB is a relatively new arrival - not some forgone conclusion from antiquity i.e. it wasn't the 1611 KJB that "was translated by Greek & Hebrew scholars into the English language of their day." Thus, it shares no connection with men's copyrighted counterfeit "modern versions" of today.

The antiquity of the KJV text-type is evidenced in Joseph Bosworth's Parallel Gospels. It includes the Gothic version dated before A.D. 360, the Anglo-Saxon version dated between A.D. 600 and 900, the Wycliffe translation dated 1381, and the Tyndale dated 1526. Comparing them with the King James Version and the new versions quickly shows that the King James is the text-type that has been used historically by the church as far back as the Gothic period, dated before A.D. 360.

Acts 2:6 says, "Every man heard them speak in his own language." God has spoken to men around the world through a text like the KJV in the German Tepl Bible, the Italian Diodati Bible, the French Olivetan Bible, the Hungarian Erdosi Bible, the Spanish Valera Bible, the Polish Visoly Bible, the De Grave Bible in Holland, the Russian Holy Synodal Bible, the German Luther Bible, and the Gottshcalkson Bible of Iceland. These all agree with the King James Version. The King James Bible Society (527 Benjulyn Rd., Cantonment, Florida) keeps a list of good foreign Bibles and missionaries in agreement with the KJV. People looking around in their church think everyone uses an NIV or another new version. That may be true within the context of their limited vision, but when looking back at the history of the church around the world, you will see that those 64,000 missing words in the NIV have not been missing through the history of the church.

God's pattern has always been the same. He has always given the COMMON MAN the COMMON BIBLE written in the COMMON LANGUAGE of the day to do one thing: evangelize the world. Today, that vernacular Bible is the uncopyrighted, free discourse King James Bible.

And that one is the KJV, how? Prophesy is not the same as translation, so I do not see any support for your assumption.

Rather, the point remains, there is only one interpreter. Do you know who that is?

Built in dictionary? Or you just redefining words to your liking?

Many are not aware that this is the method, provided by the Lord from antiquity, by which scripture interprets scripture. It’s easy, and it’s fun, and it’s Truth-full. We truth seekers could chat that up.

Interpretation is not synonymous with translation. In the verses you mention it is about saying what scripture implies theologically. Private interpretation means just that – private interpretation. How you get ‘public translation’ is quite perplexing to me.

Private = idios; the word is neither the opposite of, nor has any connection with, the word “public.” You introduced the word ‘public” - I didn’t. BTW, I’m sure you’re aware of the word “idios yncrasy,” which means a characteristic, habit, mannerism, or the like, that is peculiar to an individual; such is a no-no when interpreting scripture.

I’ve cited copious relevant scripture which indicates the connection between interpretation and translation; please likewise cite some scripture in your responses.

And the KJV is officially endored by God according to what?

Psalm 12:6-7 tells us that the Lord has preserved his pure word forever. So the question is, which one is it?

First, there are two types of "earlier bibles": God's, and Satan's (just like today).

Second, those earlier vernacular (meaning common) bibles, in the common languages of their day, which are ancestors of the KJV-text type, can be trusted. This text type is supported by over 99% of the 5400 extant (meaning existing) manuscripts and autographs. Conversely, those of Alexandrian ancestry, such as all modern copyrighted versions, cannot be trusted, as they are from manuscripts rejected as corrupt (less than 1% of the total) which have been resurrected by unsaved scholars.

The KJB is not a "perfect version;" rather, it is the word of God, the genuine article, the manifestation of God's promise to preserve his pure inspired word for ever. The modern copyrighted versions are counterfeits.

The KJB is not a "version;" it represents an ascension of the KJV text type which God has kept for his people from the beginning. King James just happened to be the man on watch at the time that vernacular (English) Bible was coming together.

Where the word of a king is, there is power (Ecc. 8:4 KJB).

And which version. There are four you know.

No, there is only one. If you insist, then post documentation, please.

BTW, the actual title of God's word is the Holy Bible - not the King James Bible. Jealous new version 'editors' sought to "rename" it centuries ago, a marketing ploy which has worked in their favor ever since.

A lexicon is not a translation. It is a tool in the translation process.

lex = word; icon = venerated image. Yes, a lex-icon is definitely a tool, but of whom?

That would be Textus Receptus. You do know it is widely available, right? I know in the post that you are cut and pasting your material (be it yours or anothers) for some reason they mistakenly assumed the TR was not available. It is available online, check it out.

You are wrong about that. Also, your “TR” is corrupt; check it’s ‘editor’ and get back to us. I’ll document and contrast, via your selected TR, the KJV-text type with your one-man edition of an unsaved scholar’s purported “TR.”

I have only mentioned the Greek in response to you using the Greek as an argument for the KJV. You said the language of the KJV more correctly captures the Greek. I pointed out how this did not make sense, to which you now say the Greek does not matter.

Your presumed predicament is because you do not know to which “original Greek” (of dozens) you are referring.

Again, I responded to your arguments from the Greek.

Again, which “Greek” would that be?

 

[Last Things]

Before I respond to your posts, are you just cut and pasting from other people on the internet? The vast majority of your posts with me exist in other places on the internet. Are those your posts you made earlier in other places? If you are cut and pasting your own material, why would you do this? If you are here to say before God and man that you are the same person who is quoted in different parts of the internet, why do you not make unique comments?

 

[Fragrant Grace]

@lawrenceb @eddieb

Please keep in mind the original post in this thread.

@lawrenceb @Last Things


This thread asks

What version of the bible do you read and why? Please give your thoughts on that version so others may learn about it.

You are turning it a debate that is going totally off topic.

I am temporarily closing the thread for reviewing by Chad and the moderator team