Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sincere Question to Jew/Christians

POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 6:06:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

hear*:D
Never fart near dog
rnjs
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 6:18:22 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

Your question may be sincere but it is also condescending, but it also looks like you are only looking at one side of the issue, for instance, instance many scholars (including non Christian scholars) who have studied the dead sea scrolls have concluded that the King James version is almost identical to what the scrolls say and although there are minor textual errors none of them change the central message.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 7:09:04 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 6:18:22 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

Your question may be sincere but it is also condescending, but it also looks like you are only looking at one side of the issue, for instance, instance many scholars (including non Christian scholars) who have studied the dead sea scrolls have concluded that the King James version is almost identical to what the scrolls say and although there are minor textual errors none of them change the central message.

The King James version is known to be a poor translation, so I find your claim to be questionable. How about a little more info?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 7:46:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 7:09:04 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:18:22 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

Your question may be sincere but it is also condescending, but it also looks like you are only looking at one side of the issue, for instance, instance many scholars (including non Christian scholars) who have studied the dead sea scrolls have concluded that the King James version is almost identical to what the scrolls say and although there are minor textual errors none of them change the central message.

The King James version is known to be a poor translation, so I find your claim to be questionable. How about a little more info?

Actually, the King James is probably the best concerning The New Testament. It's a good translation of bad texts as far as the Old Testament goes. That said, I still like it anyway. The King James is probably the best sounding bible to recite out loud if you are good at it. It helps to know what you are reading, for sure.

But to answer the question of the topic...

A big part of the Christ message has to do with understanding that "The letter of the law kills, but the spirit of the law brings life."

That being said, Christians are not supposed to make an idol out of scripture. To a lot of Christians, Islam looks like the idolatry of scripture, which is considered satanic. To a lot of Muslims, Christianity looks like the idolatry of man, which is considered satanic.

The truth is far from all of these things though. Realized Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. recognize each other as genuine brothers of The Faith, and aren't confused over matters of creation.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 7:46:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 7:09:04 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:18:22 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

Your question may be sincere but it is also condescending, but it also looks like you are only looking at one side of the issue, for instance, instance many scholars (including non Christian scholars) who have studied the dead sea scrolls have concluded that the King James version is almost identical to what the scrolls say and although there are minor textual errors none of them change the central message.

The King James version is known to be a poor translation, so I find your claim to be questionable. How about a little more info?

Preface to the Revised Standard Version (2nd ed., 1971)
..."Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation."...
Never fart near dog
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 7:57:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 7:46:26 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:09:04 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:18:22 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

Your question may be sincere but it is also condescending, but it also looks like you are only looking at one side of the issue, for instance, instance many scholars (including non Christian scholars) who have studied the dead sea scrolls have concluded that the King James version is almost identical to what the scrolls say and although there are minor textual errors none of them change the central message.

The King James version is known to be a poor translation, so I find your claim to be questionable. How about a little more info?

Actually, the King James is probably the best concerning The New Testament.

"the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to "back-translate" the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood." However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit." Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge"viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text"did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus" third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was "made to order" to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century."

https://bible.org...

It's a good translation of bad texts as far as the Old Testament goes. That said, I still like it anyway. The King James is probably the best sounding bible to recite out loud if you are good at it. It helps to know what you are reading, for sure.

Yea, I get that people like the way it sounds, but it is a very bad version. The article above points out many significant flaws with the KJV.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 8:20:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 7:46:55 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:09:04 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:18:22 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

Your question may be sincere but it is also condescending, but it also looks like you are only looking at one side of the issue, for instance, instance many scholars (including non Christian scholars) who have studied the dead sea scrolls have concluded that the King James version is almost identical to what the scrolls say and although there are minor textual errors none of them change the central message.

The King James version is known to be a poor translation, so I find your claim to be questionable. How about a little more info?

Preface to the Revised Standard Version (2nd ed., 1971)
..."Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation."...

You may be interested in this, Pop.

https://bible.org...

That being said, the Quran is not without its problems either:

http://www.patheos.com...

Islam contends that Judaism and Christianity so corrupted the Bible that God needed to provide the Quran, a charge that those two faiths vigorously deny. Unlike with the Quran, no political ruler with the power to destroy competing manuscripts mandated a universal Bible version.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 8:41:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 6:06:25 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

hear*:D

The way I see your half-assed attempt to tuck in all grammatical corners, is what's the point when all the sheets are still a filthy mess (?) So youre a grammar slob, so what...what's worse is the retarded content of thought sitting potatoes-slouched and give me a minute to bet I can't find something else here to at least win you a chicken dinner for the trifecta of disaster coming front and center and lazy (?) Potatoe please...can I at least get some fries with that?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 11:57:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

I think the level of accuracy is moot. Its like claiming the Book of Mormon lost some of its original verbiage and/or meaning. It would still be ridiculous to take seriously.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 7:18:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 8:41:59 PM, MasonicSlayer wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:06:25 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

hear*:D

The way I see your half-assed attempt to tuck in all grammatical corners, is what's the point when all the sheets are still a filthy mess (?) So youre a grammar slob, so what...what's worse is the retarded content of thought sitting potatoes-slouched and give me a minute to bet I can't find something else here to at least win you a chicken dinner for the trifecta of disaster coming front and center and lazy (?) Potatoe please...can I at least get some fries with that?

hmm ok now can u repeat that please...
Never fart near dog
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 7:25:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

From some academic views*. None of the meaning has been changed.

However, the same is true for Quran. The oldest texts do not match with what exists now. This is a potentially greater problem for Muslims than Christians. Christian's believe that our text is inspired by God, but written by men according to their times, language and culture. Muslims believe that the Quran is an eternal document directly dictated from heaven.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 7:33:04 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 8:20:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:46:55 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:09:04 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:18:22 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

Your question may be sincere but it is also condescending, but it also looks like you are only looking at one side of the issue, for instance, instance many scholars (including non Christian scholars) who have studied the dead sea scrolls have concluded that the King James version is almost identical to what the scrolls say and although there are minor textual errors none of them change the central message.

The King James version is known to be a poor translation, so I find your claim to be questionable. How about a little more info?

Preface to the Revised Standard Version (2nd ed., 1971)
..."Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation."...

You may be interested in this, Pop.

https://bible.org...

That being said, the Quran is not without its problems either:

http://www.patheos.com...

yep i aware about the Quran too... im not a hypocrite to not see my own sh1t. and im sure that we have today the same Quran as 1400 years ago.


Islam contends that Judaism and Christianity so corrupted the Bible that God needed to provide the Quran, a charge that those two faiths vigorously deny. Unlike with the Quran, no political ruler with the power to destroy competing manuscripts mandated a universal Bible version.

they can deny all day long its just their belief which proves nothing, and the last sentence somehow misrepresenting what happened.
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 7:35:54 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 11:57:03 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

I think the level of accuracy is moot. Its like claiming the Book of Mormon lost some of its original verbiage and/or meaning. It would still be ridiculous to take seriously.

well its already for ppl who took the bible seriously...
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 7:39:53 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 7:25:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

From some academic views*. None of the meaning has been changed.

However, the same is true for Quran. The oldest texts do not match with what exists now. This is a potentially greater problem for Muslims than Christians. Christian's believe that our text is inspired by God, but written by men according to their times, language and culture. Muslims believe that the Quran is an eternal document directly dictated from heaven.

oh really? http://www.birmingham.ac.uk...

one of the oldest manuscripts dated AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy. life of Prophet Mohammed was between AD 570 and 632. exactly the same.
Never fart near dog
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 7:43:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 7:39:53 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 6/3/2016 7:25:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

From some academic views*. None of the meaning has been changed.

However, the same is true for Quran. The oldest texts do not match with what exists now. This is a potentially greater problem for Muslims than Christians. Christian's believe that our text is inspired by God, but written by men according to their times, language and culture. Muslims believe that the Quran is an eternal document directly dictated from heaven.

oh really? http://www.birmingham.ac.uk...

one of the oldest manuscripts dated AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy. life of Prophet Mohammed was between AD 570 and 632. exactly the same.

You see 5.6% on a divinely dictated document is different than 5.6% on a divinely inspired document. Doesn't this go against all the muslim claims that it is perfectly preserved, and that is why we know it is divine?

So what you are telling me is that on average every 1 in 18 words is different. And what is the accuracy of the bible?
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 7:45:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 7:25:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

From some academic views*. None of the meaning has been changed.

what? first it was written by anonymous ppl, scholars argue what is false (not written by the author it claims to be like Paul), versions, fabrications and stuff..


However, the same is true for Quran. The oldest texts do not match with what exists now. This is a potentially greater problem for Muslims than Christians. Christian's believe that our text is inspired by God, but written by men according to their times, language and culture. Muslims believe that the Quran is an eternal document directly dictated from heaven.
Never fart near dog
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 7:50:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 7:45:25 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 6/3/2016 7:25:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

From some academic views*. None of the meaning has been changed.

what? first it was written by anonymous ppl, scholars argue what is false (not written by the author it claims to be like Paul), versions, fabrications and stuff..

Scholars say all sorts of things. Some may be factual, some not. It is not an exact science. The Koran wasn't assembled until after Mohammad's (what is the correct spelling... I see so many variations) death. There are as many questions on authorship there as with Christian writings, if not more so.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 7:52:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 7:43:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/3/2016 7:39:53 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 6/3/2016 7:25:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

From some academic views*. None of the meaning has been changed.

However, the same is true for Quran. The oldest texts do not match with what exists now. This is a potentially greater problem for Muslims than Christians. Christian's believe that our text is inspired by God, but written by men according to their times, language and culture. Muslims believe that the Quran is an eternal document directly dictated from heaven.

oh really? http://www.birmingham.ac.uk...

one of the oldest manuscripts dated AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy. life of Prophet Mohammed was between AD 570 and 632. exactly the same.

You see 5.6% on a divinely dictated document is different than 5.6% on a divinely inspired document. Doesn't this go against all the muslim claims that it is perfectly preserved, and that is why we know it is divine?

So what you are telling me is that on average every 1 in 18 words is different. And what is the accuracy of the bible?

where do u get that from? the Quranic manuscripts written in various style writings maybe this u meant... but its the same words different dialects doesnt change the word. for example this complete Quran (99% the same, the 1% torn off ) https://en.wikipedia.org... from the 1 century.
Never fart near dog
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 8:08:38 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 7:52:12 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 6/3/2016 7:43:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/3/2016 7:39:53 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 6/3/2016 7:25:38 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

From some academic views*. None of the meaning has been changed.

However, the same is true for Quran. The oldest texts do not match with what exists now. This is a potentially greater problem for Muslims than Christians. Christian's believe that our text is inspired by God, but written by men according to their times, language and culture. Muslims believe that the Quran is an eternal document directly dictated from heaven.

oh really? http://www.birmingham.ac.uk...

one of the oldest manuscripts dated AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy. life of Prophet Mohammed was between AD 570 and 632. exactly the same.

You see 5.6% on a divinely dictated document is different than 5.6% on a divinely inspired document. Doesn't this go against all the muslim claims that it is perfectly preserved, and that is why we know it is divine?

So what you are telling me is that on average every 1 in 18 words is different. And what is the accuracy of the bible?

where do u get that from? the Quranic manuscripts written in various style writings maybe this u meant... but its the same words different dialects doesnt change the word. for example this complete Quran (99% the same, the 1% torn off ) https://en.wikipedia.org... from the 1 century.

You just told me that the accuracy was 95.4% accurate. Sorry I originally read that as 94.5%... Anyways this means 4.6% inaccurate which is 1 in 22 words.

There has been some criticism of the Topkapi Manuscript that it was edited. I must admit that it has been a while since I read up on it though.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 8:21:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

From Catholicism and Fundamentalism:

An Accurate Text

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that "For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600." Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 8:45:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 7:33:04 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 6/2/2016 8:20:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:46:55 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:09:04 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:18:22 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

Your question may be sincere but it is also condescending, but it also looks like you are only looking at one side of the issue, for instance, instance many scholars (including non Christian scholars) who have studied the dead sea scrolls have concluded that the King James version is almost identical to what the scrolls say and although there are minor textual errors none of them change the central message.

The King James version is known to be a poor translation, so I find your claim to be questionable. How about a little more info?

Preface to the Revised Standard Version (2nd ed., 1971)
..."Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation."...

You may be interested in this, Pop.

https://bible.org...

That being said, the Quran is not without its problems either:

http://www.patheos.com...

yep i aware about the Quran too... im not a hypocrite to not see my own sh1t. and im sure that we have today the same Quran as 1400 years ago.


Islam contends that Judaism and Christianity so corrupted the Bible that God needed to provide the Quran, a charge that those two faiths vigorously deny. Unlike with the Quran, no political ruler with the power to destroy competing manuscripts mandated a universal Bible version.

they can deny all day long its just their belief which proves nothing, and the last sentence somehow misrepresenting what happened.

I am confused as to why there would need to be an "authorized version" if there was only ever one version of the Quran. Are you saying that other manuscripts never existed?

I realize this is straying from your OP, so I'll understand if you choose not to answer.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 1:48:04 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 7:57:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:46:26 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:09:04 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:18:22 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

Your question may be sincere but it is also condescending, but it also looks like you are only looking at one side of the issue, for instance, instance many scholars (including non Christian scholars) who have studied the dead sea scrolls have concluded that the King James version is almost identical to what the scrolls say and although there are minor textual errors none of them change the central message.

The King James version is known to be a poor translation, so I find your claim to be questionable. How about a little more info?

Actually, the King James is probably the best concerning The New Testament.

"the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to "back-translate" the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood." However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit." Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge"viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text"did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus" third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was "made to order" to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century."

https://bible.org...


The King James is a fine translation of the New Testament. There are worse translations. There are more words in The King James, which is something that I like.

For the record, if you are going to do a serious study using translated texts, you should do it with them side by side anyway. The King James should always be in the pile for the reason I stated earlier.. That it uses more words.

Certainly, it isn't the Greek, but not everyone knows Greek.


It's a good translation of bad texts as far as the Old Testament goes. That said, I still like it anyway. The King James is probably the best sounding bible to recite out loud if you are good at it. It helps to know what you are reading, for sure.

Yea, I get that people like the way it sounds, but it is a very bad version. The article above points out many significant flaws with the KJV.

Yet he doesn't offer a better alternative. He mentions the NIV and the NASB. I could say plenty about those translations. There are plenty of other scholars who work in this field, including myself, who think the King James is a fine translation.

Personally though, I tend to recommend people to The New King James. Yeah, it happens to have the "King James" name, but that isn't why I like it. It's a genuinely good translation, and an excellent study bible.

As I said though, The King James is not so good with the Old Testament, and that has to do with the texts they are translating from. I maintain that it is a fine translation of the New Testament. It's still a translation though. You are always going to have problems that are inherent in translation.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 1:49:00 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 7:46:26 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
But to answer the question of the topic...

A big part of the Christ message has to do with understanding that "The letter of the law kills, but the spirit of the law brings life."

That being said, Christians are not supposed to make an idol out of scripture. To a lot of Christians, Islam looks like the idolatry of scripture, which is considered satanic. To a lot of Muslims, Christianity looks like the idolatry of man, which is considered satanic.

The truth is far from all of these things though. Realized Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. recognize each other as genuine brothers of The Faith, and aren't confused over matters of creation.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 3:26:49 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 1:48:04 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:57:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:46:26 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:09:04 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:18:22 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

Your question may be sincere but it is also condescending, but it also looks like you are only looking at one side of the issue, for instance, instance many scholars (including non Christian scholars) who have studied the dead sea scrolls have concluded that the King James version is almost identical to what the scrolls say and although there are minor textual errors none of them change the central message.

The King James version is known to be a poor translation, so I find your claim to be questionable. How about a little more info?

Actually, the King James is probably the best concerning The New Testament.

"the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to "back-translate" the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood." However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit." Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge"viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text"did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus" third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was "made to order" to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century."

https://bible.org...


The King James is a fine translation of the New Testament.

I presented reasons why the KJV is very much not a "fine" translation. Is it your intent to reassert and ignore the evidence against your position?

There are worse translations. There are more words in The King James, which is something that I like.

More words means absolutely nothing. Accurately conveying the intended message from the original author (as best as we can determine) is paramount in my opinion. The variations found in the KJV, and no where else, is a clear sign of interpolation/redaction of messages said to be from god. Is it your view that god needs humans to improve his message??

Yet he doesn't offer a better alternative.

Irrelevant.

There are plenty of other scholars who work in this field, including myself, who think the King James is a fine translation.

With all due respect, I find it very hard to believe you are a Biblical scholar considering your "more words" comment above.

Personally though, I tend to recommend people to The New King James. Yeah, it happens to have the "King James" name, but that isn't why I like it. It's a genuinely good translation, and an excellent study bible.

I have nothing negative to say about the New King James translation.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
harrytruman
Posts: 812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 4:25:53 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

No, the Torah we have now is the same Torah as 2000 years ago. What proof do you have it was tampered with?
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 4:37:22 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 3:26:49 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:48:04 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:57:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:46:26 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:09:04 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:18:22 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

Your question may be sincere but it is also condescending, but it also looks like you are only looking at one side of the issue, for instance, instance many scholars (including non Christian scholars) who have studied the dead sea scrolls have concluded that the King James version is almost identical to what the scrolls say and although there are minor textual errors none of them change the central message.

The King James version is known to be a poor translation, so I find your claim to be questionable. How about a little more info?

Actually, the King James is probably the best concerning The New Testament.

"the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to "back-translate" the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood." However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit." Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge"viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text"did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus" third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was "made to order" to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century."

https://bible.org...


The King James is a fine translation of the New Testament.

I presented reasons why the KJV is very much not a "fine" translation. Is it your intent to reassert and ignore the evidence against your position?

There are worse translations. There are more words in The King James, which is something that I like.

More words means absolutely nothing. Accurately conveying the intended message from the original author (as best as we can determine) is paramount in my opinion. The variations found in the KJV, and no where else, is a clear sign of interpolation/redaction of messages said to be from god. Is it your view that god needs humans to improve his message??

Yet he doesn't offer a better alternative.

Irrelevant.

There are plenty of other scholars who work in this field, including myself, who think the King James is a fine translation.

With all due respect, I find it very hard to believe you are a Biblical scholar considering your "more words" comment above.

Personally though, I tend to recommend people to The New King James. Yeah, it happens to have the "King James" name, but that isn't why I like it. It's a genuinely good translation, and an excellent study bible.

I have nothing negative to say about the New King James translation.

Then use the NKJV. If you can't confirm these things yourself, I don't really care whether or not you respect the words of somebody else on this matter. You can just as easily, as I said before, find biblical scholars who say good things about the KJV.

And I like the fact that the KJV uses more words because that is part of what makes the translation more accurate. Even the NKJV will take several words that have different meanings and translate them as the same word. The King James translates these words as different words a lot of times.

You want to see a scripture I think the KJV translates better than any other version? 1 corinthians 13. It's a famous one. The King James version is the only one that uses the word "charity" instead of "love". This was a good decision.

More words in this case means more accuracy, there is nothing funny about saying this.

I'm not going to argue this further though. I already told you that I usually recommend the NKJV.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 4:39:06 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
And once again, if you are working with translations, it is best to use multiple ones side by side to get a fuller picture of what is being said.

This is, of course, if you can't read the original language.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 5:39:37 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 4:39:06 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
And once again, if you are working with translations, it is best to use multiple ones side by side to get a fuller picture of what is being said.

This is, of course, if you can't read the original language.
Even if you can read the original language you don't have an original book on which to employ those skills.
Oh well.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 5:43:48 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/5/2016 4:37:22 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/5/2016 3:26:49 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/5/2016 1:48:04 AM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:57:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:46:26 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
At 6/2/2016 7:09:04 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:18:22 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 6/2/2016 6:04:28 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
coming from academic point of view or scholarly approach which tells you the bibles u have today is not the originals, anonymous ppl changed it throughout history, corruption and all the distortion dont make you place some doubt in your faiths? what more proof u need? i dont get it most of u just zombies following what they heard from childhood? why dont u think a little bit for God sake he gave u brains. i mean how u dont want to heard scholarship and just follow prejudice?

Your question may be sincere but it is also condescending, but it also looks like you are only looking at one side of the issue, for instance, instance many scholars (including non Christian scholars) who have studied the dead sea scrolls have concluded that the King James version is almost identical to what the scrolls say and although there are minor textual errors none of them change the central message.

The King James version is known to be a poor translation, so I find your claim to be questionable. How about a little more info?

Actually, the King James is probably the best concerning The New Testament.

"the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to "back-translate" the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood." However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit." Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge"viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text"did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus" third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was "made to order" to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century."

https://bible.org...


The King James is a fine translation of the New Testament.

I presented reasons why the KJV is very much not a "fine" translation. Is it your intent to reassert and ignore the evidence against your position?

There are worse translations. There are more words in The King James, which is something that I like.

More words means absolutely nothing. Accurately conveying the intended message from the original author (as best as we can determine) is paramount in my opinion. The variations found in the KJV, and no where else, is a clear sign of interpolation/redaction of messages said to be from god. Is it your view that god needs humans to improve his message??

Yet he doesn't offer a better alternative.

Irrelevant.

There are plenty of other scholars who work in this field, including myself, who think the King James is a fine translation.

With all due respect, I find it very hard to believe you are a Biblical scholar considering your "more words" comment above.

Personally though, I tend to recommend people to The New King James. Yeah, it happens to have the "King James" name, but that isn't why I like it. It's a genuinely good translation, and an excellent study bible.

I have nothing negative to say about the New King James translation.


Then use the NKJV.

I don't have anything good to say about it either - I have never evaluated it.

If you can't confirm these things yourself, I don't really care whether or not you respect the words of somebody else on this matter. You can just as easily, as I said before, find biblical scholars who say good things about the KJV.

You're cherry picking. Finding scientists who believe in a flat Earth doesn't mean the concept of a flat Earth is a good one. It is the same with Biblical scholar who 'says good things about the KJV'. Our hypothetical Flat Earth scientist and our KJV Biblical Scholar hold their position ignorantly/dogmatically and they are in the minority.

And I like the fact that the KJV uses more words because that is part of what makes the translation more accurate. Even the NKJV will take several words that have different meanings and translate them as the same word. The King James translates these words as different words a lot of times.

You want to see a scripture I think the KJV translates better than any other version? 1 corinthians 13. It's a famous one. The King James version is the only one that uses the word "charity" instead of "love". This was a good decision.

So, it's right because you like it?

More words in this case means more accuracy, there is nothing funny about saying this.

Same tactic as before: ignore and reassert.

I'm not going to argue this further though.

That's just as well. You've done nothing to refute the article excerpts I presented a few posts back.

I already told you that I usually recommend the NKJV.

Understood.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten