Your thoughts on Bible translations

[TimothyK]

I've decided I'm keeping my NASB. Seriously. I can't find anything wrong with it, the one listing I see on the diagram Buzz shows doesn't correlate with the NASB. Either it's referring to an earlier version that may have well been bad or else the NAS of 1963 and the NASB of 1995 are different. I'm not seeing changes to the fact of being cleansed in the blood of Christ or any strange wording in the verses "missing" (which I see). The long ending of Mark is in there.

I'm convinced the books I have all faithfully deliver to me the Word of God. The KJV, AMP, NLT, and NASB along with Strong's hebrew and greek lexicon for study. It's the dictionaries you really have to watch anyway and I'm sure we all agree Strong's concord hasn't been tampered with by the Vatican.

My brain hurts too.

[Hootmon]

Originally Posted by TimothyK

I've decided I'm keeping my NASB.

Careful...

Some would consider you 'lukewarm' for doing that...

[twinters]

Originally Posted by Hootmon

Careful...

Some would consider you 'lukewarm' for doing that...

Then we're "lukewarm" in the eyes of those who are too dogmatic to see past that which clouds their judgement. I'm sorry, I can't contain my passion for the subject nor hide my dismay of what I'm reading in this thread. People are promoting outright falsehoods and others are accepting it as truth without really understanding the facts. Presenting the TR or it's tradition as "God's Word" (as in the perfect maintenance of) is not the truth. It's dishonest to present the TR as "fact" when the real "fact" is, neither W&H or the TR are highly regarded in a significant majority of critical circles, both conservative evangelical and non-affiliated (aka agnostic/atheistic) historians and Bible critics. Not anymore. Not for awhile. There's far too much available in the forms of scrolls, books/codices and papyri available to us to rely on 2 texts that only used a handful of what was available at that time. They're good for comparison and alternate readings but they're far from authoritative texts.

When I was 18 and I walked into one of my first classes at the Denver Conservative Seminary, the professor held up a copy of the KJV. He held it up high and said

Inspired by God, mistranslated by man

I was furious. I wasn't alone. I even went to the Dean of History and complained. How could a conservative college teach such garbage. One would expect this from Iliff, Princeton, Yale or otherwise but not here. 3 years later I understood and not by any prodding by a teacher or some textbook. A simple understanding of the Syrian tradition, as started by Tatian and later evolving (yes, evolving) into the use of the Peshitta sometime in the 5th century, not the 2nd century like most who enjoy distorting history like to present. There's no historical basis for placing it before the 5th century because it's never attested to before then nor are readings consistent with it present before then.

The fact that it only agrees partially with the TR (and more often than not, it actually agrees with the Western texts more than with TR) only drives home the point that the "charts" presented in this thread are wildly inaccurate. That's one thing that motivates me so passionately when talking about God's word. I see so many armchair theologians and wannabe translators regurgitating what they find on a single website that agrees with their position yet they ignore the mountain of research by people 10x more qualified that largely agree otherwise. For that matter, did anyone know that the earliest known versions of the Peshitta doesn't include 5 books from the NT? And that they show a lot of similarities to the Diatessaron within the Gospels and even Acts which by today's standards every person on this board would call heretical and a gross level of apostasy (or at least I'd hope we would). It wasn't until the 7th century that there was actually a "unified" Peshitta that more closely resembles our modern Bible but that version has no relationship with the works of Erasmus and the others that followed him.

As for the TR, Erasmus did a hack job (even though it wouldn't be called the TR until 1633 when another group claimed the name...it just got backported to Erasmus later on). He was (or so the story goes, that's become disputed in the past 15-20 years) racing a group from Spain in writing a new version of the Greek New Testament. His first revision used a whopping 6 manuscripts of pretty poor quality and he filled in the blanks with direct translations from the Vulgate. His 2nd revision wasn't much better and both versions he was guilty of including margin notes from the handful of texts he did have as scripture. And where the Greek texts he had didn't agree, he harmonized with the Vulgate.

And yet here's the irony of this thread. Acts 8:37 isn't found in the Majority text that comprises the Byzantine line. It comes from the Western type (albeit later and actually not even Western style but a derivative and distinctly different category...separate discussion) and from the Vulgate. Same with 1 John 5:7-8. But because people romanticize this idea that the TR was "perfect" and "God's Word restored", anything that falls outside of that thinking is heresy and/or apostasy. And quite honestly it's not only offensive, it's hurtful. I'm extremely passionate about this field of work. The whole basis for me working on my doctorate (that and it's what the Lord has called on me to do, He led me down this path and given me the opportunity to pursue it). It's extremely frustrating to see my fellow Christians spreading falsehoods, which only give ammunition to our enemies, because of their feelings or because they follow and repeat the misguided teachings of ones before them.

I'm ultimately saddened that something like this still divides Christians today. And I'm sorry that my passion may appear as anger. I assure you that it's not anger but a passion for the Lord and for His Words and to a further point, to make sure His children know the truth even if sometimes it hurts one's personal/selfish views. If this is a KJV-only board (or one that slants to a TR-only as previously alluded to) then I came to the wrong place for Christian fellowship and discussion because quite honestly both of those terms would fall hollow in that case. Part of being a Christian is about defending the faith, from both the inside and the outside, and it's far more damaging when the attacks come from within that only lead to further divide the church.

And I'm sure I'll be labeled as enumerical or some sort of apostate since I hold and promote a view that essentially says the KJV is a bad translation. For that matter, the major source for the KJV was the Bishop's Bible with the order from King James that the Divine Right of Kings be over-emphasized, that Puritan influence be diminished (i.e. water things down to silence the Puritans) and that it wasn't a word-for-word translation when they did use Greek. The fact is that for me and for most in the field I'm working towards, the NASB is the closest thing to what was probably in the original autographs, at least as they can be expressed in English. No amount of translation can properly convey the meanings and exact context of the authors for their time.

God be with you all and hopefully He will grant all of you peace with regards to this subject but I can't participate in this thread if personal dogma is going to overrule a proper education and research into the issue. Copy and paste from other dogmatic/biased sources all you want but just remember that a lie is still a lie and we are to rise above that in the service of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.





edit: I came back to edit this but I wanted to preserve my original thoughts because they were honest and were from the heart. I don't want anyone, not anyone at RR, those who lurk and those who don't believe, to take what I have said and think, "oh, the KJV is bad I shouldn't use it". That's not what I'm saying. In reality, between the Byzantine text and Western text and also between the W&H text and the TR tradition, no major points of doctrine are in question. Note that I say major points. There are items present (or absent) in both arguments across both texts that are more minor points or theology and of personal importance.

But with regards to TR and by extension the KJV, there are additions to the text as well as poor or outright bad translations. That's not to say that the other textual styles are error free courtesy of man's intervention into God's work. But when looking at things from a historical perspective and/or working on translating and trying to interpret what the author is saying, relying on a single piece of work or even a single tradition is dangerous, especially when that tradition shows up late on the scene and isn't attested to by any figure in antiquity. The lack thereof doesn't mean the text isn't "right" or "accurate", but it does mean we have no point of reference to its reading. However if the KJV is what speaks to you, like I said earlier, then that is the Bible for you. If the text of the TR and its associated works are what inspire you and being you closer to Him, then those are the Words that should give you direction. But please don't present something as "truth" without knowing the reasoning behind the omissions (or additions) and the work that has gone into trying to find out what God originally intended.

Probably the hardest point when looking at history or doing translation work is putting aside one's bias. One can only hope that the hand of God (or more appropriately the calming of the Spirit) is present when one is making these sort of judgments on this most sacred of texts before saying or publishing something that could lead others astray. Even the smallest of verses, with all the good intentions behind it, if added and proven to be a work of man and not God, could easily undermine the faith of those who don't have the strongest relationship with Jesus. Even for those of strong faith, it can open the door for doubt. Personal dogmas only compound the problem. I've always tried my best to keep an open mind when it comes to the subject of this thread and more to the point, the discussion of the last few pages. If there was some level of evidence that proved my current position wrong, I'd be the first to admit my error. But 20+ years of history, language and in-depth studies have made me cynical to those with an agenda based on an uninformed personal belief.

I turned my life over to God when I was 13 or 14 years old and again after a deeply personal and disturbing event in my adult life. He has never led me astray and I have faith that He has guided me in the right direction in matters like this. That's not to say my position is perfect nor is it "God ordained". But it is what He has led me to do, His choice for my life and it's up to me to make the most of the opportunity for the short time we have left on this planet. God bless you all and may He lead you in the right direction as well.

[turalura]

From Twinters:

"God be with you all and hopefully He will grant all of you peace with regards to this subject but I can't participate in this thread if personal dogma is going to overrule a proper education and research into the issue. Copy and paste from other dogmatic/biased sources all you want but just remember that a lie is still a lie and we are to rise above that in the service of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.


edit: I came back to edit this but I wanted to preserve my original thoughts because they were honest and were from the heart. I don't want anyone, not anyone at RR, those who lurk and those who don't believe, to take what I have said and think, "oh, the KJV is bad I shouldn't use it". That's not what I'm saying. In reality, between the Byzantine text and Western text and also between the W&H text and the TR tradition, no major points of doctrine are in question. Note that I say major points. There are items present (or absent) in both arguments across both texts that are more minor points or theology and of personal importance.

But with regards to TR and by extension the KJV, there are additions to the text as well as poor or outright bad translations. That's not to say that the other textual styles are error free courtesy of man's intervention into God's work. But when looking at things from a historical perspective and/or working on translating and trying to interpret what the author is saying, relying on a single piece of work or even a single tradition is dangerous, especially when that tradition shows up late on the scene and isn't attested to by any figure in antiquity. The lack thereof doesn't mean the text isn't "right" or "accurate", but it does mean we have no point of reference to its reading. However if the KJV is what speaks to you, like I said earlier, then that is the Bible for you. If the text of the TR and its associated works are what inspire you and being you closer to Him, then those are the Words that should give you direction. But please don't present something as "truth" without knowing the reasoning behind the omissions (or additions) and the work that has gone into trying to find out what God originally intended."



Thank you, Twinter!!!!!!I would not want to led anyone astray with my words or thoughts. What you have presented in your post above is comprehensive and thoughtful. It gives me pause to examine, again, my thoughts on discerning translations. You are much more educated than I, and I can so appreciate your knowledge in this. I want to re-read your post several times. Thank you for taking the time to post this.

[Eternally]

Hoot and Twinters:


Thanks!!!!! I feel sometimes I am the only one who gets so stirred up over this!!!!

I sure wish it was a rule... no bashing non KJV translations......

[Hootmon]

Originally Posted by twinters

If this is a KJV-only board (or one that slants to a TR-only as previously alluded to) then I came to the wrong place for Christian fellowship and discussion because quite honestly both of those terms would fall hollow in that case.

It not, or at least hasnt been so far. I wouldnt leave on that basis.

Originally Posted by Eternally

Hoot and Twinters:


Thanks!!!!! I feel sometimes I am the only one who gets so stirred up over this!!!!

I sure wish it was a rule... no bashing non KJV translations......

The whole 'there can be only one' argument makes me cranky too.

[OtherSideOfTheBoat]

Originally Posted by TimothyK

I've decided I'm keeping my NASB. Seriously. I can't find anything wrong with it, the one listing I see on the diagram Buzz shows doesn't correlate with the NASB. Either it's referring to an earlier version that may have well been bad or else the NAS of 1963 and the NASB of 1995 are different. I'm not seeing changes to the fact of being cleansed in the blood of Christ or any strange wording in the verses "missing" (which I see). The long ending of Mark is in there.

I'm convinced the books I have all faithfully deliver to me the Word of God. The KJV, AMP, NLT, and NASB along with Strong's hebrew and greek lexicon for study. It's the dictionaries you really have to watch anyway and I'm sure we all agree Strong's concord hasn't been tampered with by the Vatican.

My brain hurts too.

I read the NASB for about 20 years but not anymore. The NASB in Matthew 5:22 says, "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." The NASB translates Mark 3:5 as, "After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored." Like the NIV, the NASB omits the phrase "without a cause". Jesus had cause. By if cause doesn't matter, then Jesus was sinning. The NASB errs here. Where I first saw a big difference in the NASB was the first part of Isaiah 14. Verse 12 says, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! The NASB says "star of the morning" not Lucifer. Jesus is the "bright and morning star". That is too close to the description in Isaiah of Satan. I think these guys have their wires crossed.

[Buzzardhut]

Originally Posted by twinters

Then we're "lukewarm" in the eyes of those who are too dogmatic to see past that which clouds their judgement. I'm sorry, I can't contain my passion for the subject nor hide my dismay of what I'm reading in this thread.

I am surprised at the bashings of one of the great pillars of the Reformation - Erasmus, and endearments for ecumenicals of Rome - Westcott-Hort

Originally Posted by twinters

People are promoting outright falsehoods and others are accepting it as truth without really understanding the facts. Presenting the TR or it's tradition as "God's Word" (as in the perfect maintenance of) is not the truth.

This is a falsehood misrepresentation of the lineage noted, Erasmus did not work alone.

Originally Posted by twinters

It's dishonest to present the TR as "fact" when the real "fact" is, neither W&H or the TR are highly regarded in a significant majority of critical circles, both conservative evangelical and non-affiliated (aka agnostic/atheistic) historians and Bible critics. Not anymore. Not for awhile. There's far too much available in the forms of scrolls, books/codices and papyri available to us to rely on 2 texts that only used a handful of what was available at that time. They're good for comparison and alternate readings but they're far from authoritative texts.

True, it's so late in the age (so close to the rapture) and the wealth of online resources, the issue is quite mute, but you cannot deny the rich lineage of the KJV of the reformation and the harvest of its fruit - Evangelicalism.

Originally Posted by twinters

When I was 18 and I walked into one of my first classes at the Denver Conservative Seminary, the professor held up a copy of the KJV. He held it up high and said
I was furious. I wasn't alone. I even went to the Dean of History and complained. How could a conservative college teach such garbage. One would expect this from Iliff, Princeton, Yale or otherwise but not here.

This happens at every seminary, along with emergent and purpose driven teachings, most of the research used is derived from catholic archivers because they were the only ones with the obtainable resources

Originally Posted by twinters

3 years later I understood and not by any prodding by a teacher or some textbook. A simple understanding of the Syrian tradition, as started by Tatian and later evolving (yes, evolving) into the use of the Peshitta sometime in the 5th century, not the 2nd century like most who enjoy distorting history like to present. There's no historical basis for placing it before the 5th century because it's never attested to before then nor are readings consistent with it present before then.

We also have rich conservative resources of Biblical scholars, documenting scripture as they forged theological doctrines throughout the centuries, their fundamental teachings do not disagree with the Majority text.

Originally Posted by twinters

The fact that it only agrees partially with the TR (and more often than not, it actually agrees with the Western texts more than with TR) only drives home the point that the "charts" presented in this thread are wildly inaccurate. That's one thing that motivates me so passionately when talking about God's word. I see so many armchair theologians and wannabe translators regurgitating what they find on a single website that agrees with their position yet they ignore the mountain of research by people 10x more qualified that largely agree otherwise. For that matter, did anyone know that the earliest known versions of the Peshitta doesn't include 5 books from the NT? And that they show a lot of similarities to the Diatessaron within the Gospels and even Acts which by today's standards every person on this board would call heretical and a gross level of apostasy (or at least I'd hope we would). It wasn't until the 7th century that there was actually a "unified" Peshitta that more closely resembles our modern Bible but that version has no relationship with the works of Erasmus and the others that followed him.

No one disputes books were in fragments, several uncovered at later dates, and several cannot be dated. Looking over the entire collection of scripture formation and translation it looks just like a hack job from both sides of the fence. The Dead Sea scrolls are a good example of how God preserved His words

Originally Posted by twinters

As for the TR, Erasmus did a hack job (even though it wouldn't be called the TR until 1633 when another group claimed the name...it just got backported to Erasmus later on). He was (or so the story goes, that's become disputed in the past 15-20 years) racing a group from Spain in writing a new version of the Greek New Testament. His first revision used a whopping 6 manuscripts of pretty poor quality and he filled in the blanks with direct translations from the Vulgate.
His 2nd revision wasn't much better and both versions he was guilty of including margin notes from the handful of texts he did have as scripture. And where the Greek texts he had didn't agree, he harmonized with the Vulgate.
And yet here's the irony of this thread. Acts 8:37 isn't found in the Majority text that comprises the Byzantine line. It comes from the Western type (albeit later and actually not even Western style but a derivative and distinctly different category...separate discussion) and from the Vulgate. Same with 1 John 5:7-8. But because people romanticize this idea that the TR was "perfect" and "God's Word restored",

Erasmus did not use Jerome's Vulgate. There was more than one Vulgate. No one said a perfect Erasmus TR was combined before Wycliffe, Luther, Tyndale, Coverdale, etc..
these men penned the Words of faith of true Christianity in the midst of depressed persecution and oppression from a church touting their own line of scripture, I'll stand behind them any day of the week.

Originally Posted by twinters

anything that falls outside of that thinking is heresy and/or apostasy. And quite honestly it's not only offensive, it's hurtful. I'm extremely passionate about this field of work. The whole basis for me working on my doctorate (that and it's what the Lord has called on me to do, He led me down this path and given me the opportunity to pursue it). It's extremely frustrating to see my fellow Christians spreading falsehoods, which only give ammunition to our enemies, because of their feelings or because they follow and repeat the misguided teachings of ones before them.

then take it verse by verse, God's word withstands alone. I've been personally attacked by KJVO people myself for not quoting the KJV in my writings, I believe God's precise intentions must be interpreted clearly and simply stated. I see God's word continuing on through contributing members here as His message is conveyed to our present generation.

Originally Posted by twinters

I'm ultimately saddened that something like this still divides Christians today. And I'm sorry that my passion may appear as anger. I assure you that it's not anger but a passion for the Lord and for His Words and to a further point, to make sure His children know the truth even if sometimes it hurts one's personal/selfish views.

false doctrine and false scripture divides, truth in God's word should heal and unify, are we to believe and receive all versions? Which is to be accepted when they contradict one another? that's where the confusion and division remains

Originally Posted by twinters

If this is a KJV-only board (or one that slants to a TR-only as previously alluded to) then I came to the wrong place for Christian fellowship and discussion because quite honestly both of those terms would fall hollow in that case. Part of being a Christian is about defending the faith, from both the inside and the outside, and it's far more damaging when the attacks come from within that only lead to further divide the church.

This is not a KJO board though all the attacks have been upon the KJV being used to compare with other translations, I personally read the NKJV along with KJV but don't believe God speaks in old English nor the KJV must be quoted for the Holy Spirit to move, I accept thought for thought as long as the thought does not paint a different perception of evangelical doctrine
The mission of this board is in our beliefs, goals and values, which every saved member here is more than happy to participate with.

Originally Posted by twinters

And I'm sure I'll be labeled as enumerical or some sort of apostate since I hold and promote a view that essentially says the KJV is a bad translation. For that matter, the major source for the KJV was the Bishop's Bible with the order from King James that the Divine Right of Kings be over-emphasized, that Puritan influence be diminished (i.e. water things down to silence the Puritans) and that it wasn't a word-for-word translation when they did use Greek. The fact is that for me and for most in the field I'm working towards, the NASB is the closest thing to what was probably in the original autographs, at least as they can be expressed in English. No amount of translation can properly convey the meanings and exact context of the authors for their time.

The NASB is exactly the Nestle-Aland ie, Alexandrian Vaticanus, which is why it is word for word

Originally Posted by twinters

God be with you all and hopefully He will grant all of you peace with regards to this subject but I can't participate in this thread if personal dogma is going to overrule a proper education and research into the issue. Copy and paste from other dogmatic/biased sources all you want but just remember that a lie is still a lie and we are to rise above that in the service of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Both streams contain their variant histories and traditions, but that does not make one stream more acceptable as much as the faith of the men driving these scriptures, including the fruit of their efforts, it's their determination, loyalty, zeal for God, and evidence of a changed life which is of utmost importance in Antioch TR vs. Alexandrian Vatican

Originally Posted by twinters

edit: I came back to edit this but I wanted to preserve my original thoughts because they were honest and were from the heart. I don't want anyone, not anyone at RR, those who lurk and those who don't believe, to take what I have said and think, "oh, the KJV is bad I shouldn't use it". That's not what I'm saying. In reality, between the Byzantine text and Western text and also between the W&H text and the TR tradition, no major points of doctrine are in question. Note that I say major points. There are items present (or absent) in both arguments across both texts that are more minor points or theology and of personal importance.
But with regards to TR and by extension the KJV, there are additions to the text as well as poor or outright bad translations.

This argument is equally implied to Vaticanus

Originally Posted by twinters

That's not to say that the other textual styles are error free courtesy of man's intervention into God's work. But when looking at things from a historical perspective and/or working on translating and trying to interpret what the author is saying, relying on a single piece of work or even a single tradition is dangerous, especially when that tradition shows up late on the scene and isn't attested to by any figure in antiquity. The lack thereof doesn't mean the text isn't "right" or "accurate", but it does mean we have no point of reference to its reading.

don't forget the atmosphere of those times, the oppression intended to eliminate God's Word and replace it with counterfeit prooftexts. The Roman church was not zealous in protecting God's Word, they rewrote it to fit their personal doctrines and traditions. The blatancy is obvious and to ignore it gives satan a free pass. We can all agree satan has worked hard on this for centuries

Originally Posted by twinters

Probably the hardest point when looking at history or doing translation work is putting aside one's bias. One can only hope that the hand of God (or more appropriately the calming of the Spirit) is present when one is making these sort of judgments on this most sacred of texts before saying or publishing something that could lead others astray. Even the smallest of verses, with all the good intentions behind it, if added and proven to be a work of man and not God, could easily undermine the faith of those who don't have the strongest relationship with Jesus. Even for those of strong faith, it can open the door for doubt. Personal dogmas only compound the problem. I've always tried my best to keep an open mind when it comes to the subject of this thread and more to the point, the discussion of the last few pages. If there was some level of evidence that proved my current position wrong, I'd be the first to admit my error. But 20+ years of history, language and in-depth studies have made me cynical to those with an agenda based on an uninformed personal belief.

I have yet to see someone led astray by the KJV but have seen thousands led astray by Romanism, people can get saved without the KJV but apostasy demands textual support as we currently see happening with the Message, TNIV, and other modern paraphrases, it's obvious the pattern is repeating and the author of confusion is behind it.

[Blood Bought]

By faith, I stick with KJV only.

Nothing I can prove here. I just haven't been led to any other version.

[TimothyK]

Originally Posted by Hootmon

Careful...

Some would consider you 'lukewarm' for doing that...

If that's how it has to be, let the winds blow. I don't really care what people think of me. I wonder after what God thinks of me. I see Jack Kelly for example using the KJV and NIV side by side in a lot of his articles, not because the NIV is any kind of authority, but because it makes the true text easier to understand. He uses it to that end. As do I, with my preferences in versions differing a bit. I would hardly raise a doubt or concern over that mans standing with God.

I don't question mine either. I know Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. I'm sorry everyday for my wrongs. I'm far from perfect and until the day I go to meet Him face to face I never will be. I accept His finished work on the cross and I know it was for me and all sinners sakes that He came from Heaven to die and then rise on the third day in victory. He alone is perfect. If I am wrong on everything else, I know Jesus Christ and Him crucified for my sake and the sake of sinners, of which I am. This fact alone is what will decide a better fate for me when I step into Eternity by either the soon sound of the trumpet and the call of my Lord Jesus Christ, or else when my mortal life has come to an end. By the grace, mercy, and deep love of God alone will I be saved from wrath and Hell.

If that makes me lukewarm, I'm interested in knowing what makes my accuser so hot or so cold.

[TimothyK]

Originally Posted by OtherSideOfTheBoat

I read the NASB for about 20 years but not anymore. The NASB in Matthew 5:22 says, "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." The NASB translates Mark 3:5 as, "After looking around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored." Like the NIV, the NASB omits the phrase "without a cause". Jesus had cause. By if cause doesn't matter, then Jesus was sinning. The NASB errs here. Where I first saw a big difference in the NASB was the first part of Isaiah 14. Verse 12 says, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! The NASB says "star of the morning" not Lucifer. Jesus is the "bright and morning star". That is too close to the description in Isaiah of Satan. I think these guys have their wires crossed.

Isn't Matthew 5 Jesus explaining the impossible standard that would have to be kept to be considered Holy by the Law, which is what the Pharisees were trying to do? Anger is held against you as murder and your very thoughts can condemn you by the Law. Is there a cause sufficient to warrant murder/anger against your brother when we're also supposed to be forgiving and not seeking revenge on our own power?

As for Mark 3:5 can't God be angry with righteous anger? Doesn't vengeance belong to God? If anyone has a right to avenge it is God. In this particular case he was angry that they (Pharisees, religious rulers of the time) could be so harsh on a lame man or even think to accuse the Spirit of God, even our God Jesus Christ for healing a man on the Sabbath as though they had any right or authority. This caused him grief and our Lord Jesus had compassion on the lame man and healed him. God doesn't need a cause to heal people or do anything He pleases. God can heal on the Sabbath or any day He chooses. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. God is also the Lord of the Sabbath. Or if you want to keep it as text literal as possible the NASB also tells me in Hebrews 4:14-16 that Jesus Christ is without sin. Since no part of the Bible contradicts itself, what Jesus Christ did in Mark 3:5 cannot have resulted in Jesus sinning. If Jesus was in error when He was to heal the lame man in Mark 3:5, God certainly wouldn't have worked this miracle if it would result in sin.

If any verse helped me make my choice it's the Isaiah 14:12 verse. People just want to split hairs. I've always differed to the NLT translation of this verse because it's more concise but the NASB reading isn't wrong if you consider the language used. Satan was a "star". Stars in the Bible often reference angels. He was an angel or "son" (IE: "sons of God") of the morning/dawn. Even the KJV uses this terminology. He was one of the very best angels before he was fallen. Even then I do understand how this verse confuses people. The hebrew reads heylel ben shachar in Isaiah 14:12. They really should have just stuck with the Hebrew instead of trying to translate that into a name for Satan. And if it is a name, the original hebrew should have done it justice. "Heylel Shachar" or "Heylel" angel of the morning. It's not the end all issue people make it out to be though and it's not "wrong" in the KJV. It's very literally accurate in translation and the least confusing (that guy Lucifer that's Satan now) but so is shining/bright (heylel, halal) one, and even morning star, or bright star of morning, boasting bright raving morning star... the lexicon really does justice for verses like these.

Revelation and arguably all of the New Testament (with leeway to the fact that some of the very earliest books may have began in aramaic or hebrew by way of the apostles native language) were written in greek. The Old Testament was exclusively in hebrew. No doubt there's going to be some similar word usages when compared. 2 Peter 1:19 and Revelation 22:16 come to mind. 2 Peter 1:19 is just an honest comparison to the joy we will experience when the "morning star" (Jesus Christ) rises in our hearts. Before we are saved we are in darkness. When we hear the prophetic words of God they are like a lamp shining in a dismal dark place. When day breaks, when Jesus Christ the Morning Star arises in our hearts, the joy we experience is like the joy of a man coming out of the darkness and beholding the day. He can see clearly and the predators of the night are gone away. Where if Satan was once a star that shone brilliantly at dawn, Jesus Christ is the "sun" and his radiance is unrivaled. He is God Almighty, the creator of the Heavens and the Earth.

Revelation 22:16 seems to almost compound on this by way of it's wording. Where Satan was once a star, Jesus Christ is the source and the root. He is responsible for the lineage of David's line and the promised Messiah from it. He is God and Jesus Christ the Messiah. Satan can never legitimately claim this. Satan can't create life nor was he born like a man. Satan is just an angel that once was great. Many good and comely words were used to describe him. He can claim none of them any longer. He is cut down and will never be anything great again.

[bookworm1711]

I wish there were an easy way for me to share all the knowledge I have gained from over fifty years of solid study of textual criticism, the Greek language used in the New Testament, and the Bible in general!

At least I can thankfully correct a minor matter of misstatement in one of my posts above. I made reference to Shakespeare, and to my six volume set. I mistakenly referred to the set as the Yale Shakespeare. I was wrong. It's The London Shakespeare. I should have known and remembered better! I think my memory was fooled by the many advertisements I've seen for the Yale Shakespeare in my professional English journals.

As for modern English translations, probably none of them will lead you far astray. I prefer reading and studying from the King James Version, since I have lived with that version all of my life.

I do not confine my studies to the KJV though. I may well have more English versions and translations in my personal library than anyone else on this forum. If I can count sources of partial translations of the Bible (translations of just a part of the Old Testament, or a part of the New Testament), I have over 200 different English translations of the Bible according to a count I recall making in the mid 1960s. You might imagine I have bought one or two books since then. I have 15 feet of shelf space in the closest bookcase to where I am using my computer in my library room devoted to Bible translations and versions. I have many more Bibles in various translations downstairs in the living room.

I mentioned that I had spent two or more weeks recently full time studying about Bible translations. I read two very good books on this issue:

1. Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men: The almost unknown story of the scholars of differing beliefs and minor literary talents who together created a masterpiece--the King James Bible. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1959.

2. Geddes MacGregor, A Literary History of the Bible, from the middle ages to the present day. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968.

The King James Version was fortuitously made at just the right time in the history of the English language. As a result, the English of the King James Version, in terms of its style, can probably never be surpassed from a literary standpoint.

Even Spurgeon remarked upon the completion of the English Revised Version that it was "Strong in Greek, weak in English" (quoted in MacGregor, A Literary History of the Bible, page 274). Spurgeon's observation is most accurate.

Of course King James had little to do with the translation itself. However, the committees set up to do the translation had a set of fifteen rules they were required to follow.

Rule 1 reads:

The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will admit.

Rule 3 reads:

The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz., the word church not to be translated congregation, &c.

I won't go on to quote the entire list, but they make for interesting reading. The third rule was included to appease the Anglicans and the Church of England as opposed to the viewpoint represented by the few Puritans represented on the committees. It was by the request of the Puritans for a new Bible translation that the idea to create the King James Version as we know it arose.

The Puritans, by and large, were surely correct in their view that the English versions then available were faulty on this point. Of course, the Anglicans wished for a version which reinforced their High Church views.

So, the oddity of the expression "and his bishoprick let another take" (Acts 1:20), cited from the Psalms as prophecy in reference to replacing Judas. Young's Literal Translation translates "and his oversight let another take." The NIV gives "May another take his place of leadership." The citation is from Psalm 109:8.

Right off the bat, therefore, we know that the King James Version in terms of some theological terms was translated to satisfy a particular theological or ecclesiastical viewpoint.

Further study of this matter will show that nearly all English translations have what may be an unconscious theological bias in the terminology chosen to render many terms pertaining to the doctrine of the Atonement of Christ and related matters.

I have learned of one Greek lexicon by Louw and Nida that is accurate and unbiased in its definitions. Unfortunately, the lexicon in its printed form is no longer available, though it is available in some very expensive Bible software programs. I had access to it on this computer until a lightning strike or power surge last summer (July 24) destroyed my power supply and motherboard. Now I can no longer run WindowsXP, but am stuck with Vista, until I install Windows 7, so that programs I once could run on this computer may no longer be usable with a new operating system.

Unless you are able to learn Hebrew and Greek well, the best avenue for the ordinary Bible reading Christian is to compare several translations to help arrive at what the original text reads and means, and for further depth, consult specialized books on the subject. The NET Bible in its extensive system of footnotes (some 60,000 notes) gives an abundance of material on this subject.

Of course, all this study without the illumination and guidance of the Holy Spirit is fruitless, spiritually. The Bible clearly declares that the "natural man" cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God, for they are "spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

But the Holy Spirit is not in the business of excusing us from doing our homework.

In the light of the evidence now available to us from the large mass of surviving manuscripts, there is no possible way to account for the path of transmission of the variations in the text represented over the wide geographical area where they have been found by means of a simple chart. Fortunately, the variations are of such limited significance that they do not call in question any major or minor doctrine derived from Scripture.

[Buzzardhut]

Originally Posted by bookworm1711

The third rule was included to appease the Anglicans and the Church of England as opposed to the viewpoint represented by the few Puritans represented on the committees. It was by the request of the Puritans for a new Bible translation that the idea to create the King James Version as we know it arose.

The Puritans, by and large, were surely correct in their view that the English versions then available were faulty on this point. Of course, the Anglicans wished for a version which reinforced their High Church views.


Right off the bat, therefore, we know that the King James Version in terms of some theological terms was translated to satisfy a particular theological or ecclesiastical viewpoint.

Further study of this matter will show that nearly all English translations have what may be an unconscious theological bias in the terminology chosen to render many terms pertaining to the doctrine of the Atonement of Christ and related matters.

Please cite examples of KJV catering to high church

[twinters]

King James, to the committees:

The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truly Parens patriae, the politique father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man.

Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destrov make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both souls and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, thev have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only. . . .

I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity, That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy....so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power. But just kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon; but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws. . . I would wish you to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of grievances:

First, that you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that were to lesson me . . . I must not be taught my office.

Secondly, I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors . . . . All novelties are dangerous as well in a politic as in a natural body. and therefore I would be loath to be quarreled in my ancient rights and possessions, for that were to judge me unworthy of that which my predecessors had and left me.

And lastly, I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by a settled law, and whereunto . . . you know I will never give a plausible answer; for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.

Cand be found in "Works", originally published in 1609. This was his demand that the "Diving Right of Kings" be over-emphasized and maintained. Examples of this over-emphasis found in the KJV are:

Romans 13:1
1 Peter 2:13-17
Titus 3:1

He objected to the margin notes found in the Geneva Bible that contained alternate readings and demanded them removed. As for his other instructions:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.
3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.
4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.
5. The division of chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.
7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and, having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.
9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his Majesty is very careful on this point.
10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.
11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.
12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before in the king’s letter to the archbishop.
13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester, for Westminster, and the king’s professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.
14. These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops’ Bible: Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s [Rogers'], Whitchurch’s [Cranmer's], Geneva.”
15. By a later rule, “three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation of the fourth rule.”

Furthermore, to your point regarding your surprise at my attacks on Erasmus (which they weren't but w/e) - he was far from a major figure in the Reformation and he was much more Catholic friendly than you want to believe.

For starters, he ***HATED*** 2 Peter. So much so that he never included it. For that matter, Luther also called 2 Peter the equivalent of "rubbish" only in German.

Second, Erasmus sat on the sidelines on the Reformation. When Luther wanted his help, Erasmus only offered to mediate. He had no beef with the institution of the Catholic church, its rights or its practices. His beef was with the abuse of power by the clergy. He called on the clergy to be more pious and more humble, to stop abusing their authority and be more like servants to the people (as he wrote to Charles V of Spain, the Emperor at the time). And while he called upon common people to have access to the Bible, he never once called for people to have personal relationships with Jesus, to still use the clergy for matters of interpretation and clarity and he never became a protestant. He never left the Catholic church but instead tried to reform it from within. Erasmus died a *gasp, the horror* (Reformed) Catholic but never a Protestant.

He didn't believe in predestination.
He believed in free will.
He believed in the Eucharist / transsubstantiation and called out those who said he agreed with them (including "Spongia adversus aspergines Hutteni" published in 1523 which is actually quite "catty" for a book of its nature).
He believed that Sacred Tradition was just as divinely inspired as the Bible (Explanation of the Apostles' Creed published in 1533) in which he was also critical of Luther and the Protestant Reformation while pushing more for the Catholic's own reformation.

I'm not saying he wasn't influential or that his works weren't critical to later successes of the Protestant movement in the 16th and 17th centuries. But your "history" of him is wrong, revisionist and blatantly misleading / deceitful.

As for which Vulgate he used to "fill in the blanks" for the 6 manuscripts he had, he used the Complutensian Polyglot (I probably massacred that spelling, my bad) which had Jerome's Vulgate as one column and the Greek Otrhodox readings as the other column for the New Testament volumes. Guess which readings match closest to his 1st - 3rd editions...



PS: I'll be traveling for work this week so if I don't reply, it's not that I'm ignoring anyone, I just have other stuff to do for school/work.

[Buzzardhut]

Ah yes. the notorious 5th column, Origen's favorite
Luther himself flip flopped from high church to low several times throughout his ministry, tried to discard the book of James from the canon, etc...
They were all men of clay, and yet the Holy Spirit used them to forge a revolutionary movement leaning towards Jesus alone, through faith alone, through one book alone - Sola Liber!

Originally Posted by twinters

This was his demand that the "Diving Right of Kings" be over-emphasized and maintained. Examples of this over-emphasis found in the KJV are:

Romans 13:1
1 Peter 2:13-17
Titus 3:1

all translations emphasize the same meaning

[twinters]

Originally Posted by Buzzardhut

all translations emphasize the same meaning

Word-for-Word translation of 1 Peter 2:13-17 (by me)
You may be being subject to every human creation through the master if besides king as superior if besides leader as through him being sent into justing of evil doers on praise yet of good doers that thus is the will of the god good doing to be muzzling the undeposed (or imprudent) humans unknowledge (or ignorant) as free and no as cover having the evil the freedom but as of god slaves all value (or honor) the brotherhood be loving the God be fearing the king be valuing (or honoring depending on how one chooses to translate "timate" given the context).

A literal translation of 1 Peter 2:13-17 (not by me)
You may be subject to every human creation because of the Lord, whether to the king, as superior, or to governors, as being sent, through (or by) him, for (also can be read as "into"...significantly changes the reading) vengeance on evildoers, yet for the applause of doers of good. For thus it is the will of God by doing good to be muzzling the ignorance of imprudent men (or human) as free and not as having freedom for a cover over evil but as God's slaves. Honor all, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

The KJV view of 1 Peter 2:13-17
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

The NASB view of 1 Peter 2:13-17
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

Now the NASB and KJV largely agree except for verse 16 where there is a significant difference: "As free" verses "Act as free men". I suppose ordinance (KJV) versus institution (NASB) can be considered a major difference but since the Greek says "human creation", it's kind of a wash. Even Strongs goes soft here by saying "original formation (properly, the act; by implication, the thing, literally or figuratively):--building, creation, creature, ordinance." Ordinance would point to laws where institution would point to the power or seat of government. Splitting hairs possibly but it's the difference of submitting to the laws of the land or honoring the king. But the Greek doesn't say to outright submit. It says "you may be". I suppose it's how you want to translate upotaghte (Argh!!!! Allow greek pasting - hupotasso) but a word for word translation is clearly "you may be under or you may be subject"

1633 TR and W&H mostly agree on the Greek reading here in case anyone cares. Not too different from Erasmus' 3rd edition Greek NT. I'm using NA27 as my base for the example here (even the most conservative seminaries use it and it's what I have available at 3am in the morning). NA27 carries multiple variant readings where applicable but in this case everyone is in agreement (minus two minor words aka "the" and "and"). Vulgate does not (although Latin isn't my thing shy of speaking Spanish and some Italian/Portuguese). Geneva Bible, in the margins, noted the "you may be" piece which rendered submission somewhat optional.

(Origen didn't have the Polyglot...he was dead before Jerome was even born for that matter. All he would have had was greek on greek and it's not like he had Majority text vs Western style. He has "greek" manuscripts period as there wasn't a tradition or distinction at that time.)

[Buzzardhut]

Originally Posted by twinters

Word-for-Word translation of 1 Peter 2:13-17 (by me)
subject to every human creation through the master if besides king as superior if besides leader as through him being sent into justing god slaves all value (or honor) the brotherhood be loving the God be fearing the king be valuing ([I]or honoring

A literal translation of 1 Peter 2:13-17 (not by me)
subject to every human creation because of the Lord, whether to the king, as superior, or to governors, as God's slaves. Honor all, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

The KJV view of 1 Peter 2:13-17
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

The NASB view of 1 Peter 2:13-17
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishmentAct as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

Now the NASB and KJV largely agree except for verse 16 where there is a significant difference: "As free" verses "Act as free men". I suppose ordinance (KJV) versus institution (NASB) can be considered a major difference but since the Greek says "human creation", it's kind of a wash. Even Strongs goes soft here by saying "original formation (properly, the act; by implication, the thing, literally or figuratively):--building, creation, creature, ordinance." Ordinance would point to laws where institution would point to the power or seat of government. Splitting hairs possibly but it's the difference of submitting to the laws of the land or honoring the king. But the Greek doesn't say to outright submit. It says "you may be". I suppose it's how you want to translate upotaghte (Argh!!!! Allow greek pasting - hupotasso) but a word for word translation is clearly "you may be under or you may be subject"

1633 TR and W&H mostly agree on the Greek reading here in case anyone cares. Not too different from Erasmus' 3rd edition Greek NT. I'm using NA27 as my base for the example here (even the most conservative seminaries use it and it's what I have available at 3am in the morning). NA27 carries multiple variant readings where applicable but in this case everyone is in agreement (minus two minor words aka "the" and "and"). Vulgate does not (although Latin isn't my thing shy of speaking Spanish and some Italian/Portuguese). Geneva Bible, in the margins, noted the "you may be" piece which rendered submission somewhat optional.

(Origen didn't have the Polyglot...he was dead before Jerome was even born for that matter. All he would have had was greek on greek and it's not like he had Majority text vs Western style. He has "greek" manuscripts period as there wasn't a tradition or distinction at that time.)

I'm not seeing any discrepancy, seems to be straining gnats
the thought for thought in all versions is: "honor those God places over you for He ordained it and it brings honor to God"

Westcott-Hort's favorite column ,not Origen - sorry
http://www.buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Biblehist.htm

[twinters]

Originally Posted by Buzzardhut

I'm not seeing any discrepancy, seems to be straining gnats
the thought for thought in all versions is: "honor those God places over you for He ordained it and it brings honor to God"

Westcott-Hort's favorite column ,not Origen - sorry
http://www.buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Biblehist.htm

Then you haven't read a word I wrote and are arguing for the sake of arguing, further brought out by you repeating a chart I already showed being wrong (date of the Peshitta). You're not interested in truth and you like to distort both history and Christianity.

2 Corinthians 11
2 Timothy 2:14-26
Romans 16:17-19

I'm hoping you mean well. From your words you certainly speak that way but the undertone of your message is simple "if the results are the same who cares?" which runs in the spirit of deceit and not of our Lord Jesus Christ. There's no point in discussing this with you any longer since you continue to promote falsehoods and in light of your moderator status, there's nothing that will change other than your painting of me as a bad guy or some rabble rouser since I openly disagree with you.

[Buzzardhut]

Originally Posted by twinters

Then you haven't read a word I wrote and are arguing for the sake of arguing, further brought out by you repeating a chart I already showed being wrong (date of the Peshitta). You're not interested in truth and you like to distort both history and Christianity.

2 Corinthians 11
2 Timothy 2:14-26
Romans 16:17-19

I'm hoping you mean well. From your words you certainly speak that way but the undertone of your message is simple "if the results are the same who cares?" which runs in the spirit of deceit and not of our Lord Jesus Christ. There's no point in discussing this with you any longer since you continue to promote falsehoods and in light of your moderator status, there's nothing that will change other than your painting of me as a bad guy or some rabble rouser since I openly disagree with you.

I'm not arguing
I don't see any differences between submission, slave, subject /Lord, King, Master, superior, etc... They used words from their current context to convey general meanings to the laymen, which is the purpose for translating.
Peshitta dates don't disprove anything
your axe to grind is grinding down the KJV but you selected verses that appear complimentary to me
God's Word withstands history, I feel you support the revisionists more than I err on any chart
Mod or not, we have God's Word and plenty more sources I have not yet provided support it.

[grounded]

Buzzardhut - I can't explain how dismayed I am that you used a tract from D.O. Fuller, the writer/editor of Which Bible?. This work is filled with errors and relys heavily on the works of B.G. Wilkinson, a Seventh Day Adventist with an agenda. Who's up next Ruckman?

Its comical that Fuller refers to W&H as "Closet Catholics". Again, why does Erasmus get a pass - he was a Catholic. He expressed his belief in the Perpetual Viriginity of Mary, his belief in transubstantiation, his belief in sacred tradition as reliable as the scripture, wrote a PARAPHRASE on every NT book except Revelation an thendedicated them to Pope Clement VII. Your biography of Erasmus in an earlier post may hold some truth but it also withholds truth.
I neither defend W&H nor do I denigrate Erasmus. I merely ask that as the debate goes on those who know the truth not shape it for their argument.