[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

People should see that we are NOT saying "Unless you have the KJB, you cannot be saved".



Apollos knew only the baptism of John. It was good. But it was not the perfect understanding. Just as Apollos had the motive to spread truth and do good, so I would venture is the aims of the TRO folk.

But let us be clear: the Word of God is already available to many folk throughout the world today. There are three forms: modern versions (the worst), TR-based versions (multiple ones in some languages), and the KJB itself.

The best form of the Word of God for anyone is the KJB, and I would rather have the KJB given to people who have English as a second language than expend all the effort, resources, time and money on trying to get a KJB equivalent into their native dialects.

Therefore, I serious doubt that we could say that some Poles or Spanish-speakers are missing out of the Scripture, as the above statement implies, "spread it into the hands of souls that have no word of God". It is not that they do not have the Word, but it is as if many need the best form, and that it would be good for them all to have it, namely the pure and perfect KJB.

The evidence of whether or not people are with us or not, is whether or not the KJB is being uphold as both the best, and as perfect. Many people on this forum agree that the KJB is perfect. That means that as far as the exact knowledge of Scripture is concerned, the KJB itself must be upheld as the final form of the Received Text, to which we desire all folk of all languages to acknowledge, even if English is not their first language. This is despite the existence of Scripture in other previous translations.

Then let's you and I be at peace with each other on this topic, brother, and continue to run our course that we may decrease and He increase. The KJV is a worthless lump of wood pulp to the average Arab man on the street, he can't read it. It's not inspired to him. God cannot breath through it. That's the purpose of I Cor. 14. We are forbidden to preach the gospel of Christ in English to an Arab or Chinese who cannot understand it. The Catholic Church preached in an unknown tongue(Latin) with no interpreter for 1700 years and burned those who tried to give His words, even their corrupted versions, to the common man. Do you understand my teaching on I Cor. 14 now?

I'm with you and not against you on the KJV. To a point. At no time in history were the original manuscripts ever gathered together in one inspired volume that God could speak through until 1611. I have a Reina/Valera of 1569 on my computer Bible program. Purge out the "Apocrypha" and it looks pretty good to my uneducated-in-Spanish eyes. Are there errors in it? Why have they not been corrected? I'm being neither sarcastic or accusatory, but we have an entire continent on this planet that speaks nothing but Spanish, other than some native Indian tongues.

Let me offer you my right hand in fellowship and let's move on to our discussion of the Lord's cry on the cross and water baptism in Leviticus 8 when I can get time to write, and when those are over let's just pray for each other, separated by thousands of miles but brothers in Him who is closer than a brother.

Grace and peace to you

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

Hey Daniel. Do you by any chance have the link to the Spanish Bible of 1280 by rey Alfonso? About three years ago I did a big project for one of my Spanish classes at Colorado University and I used to have the link to a site that showed the New Testament portion of La Biblia Alfonsina of 1280. I did a comparison of it with the Greek of the TR, and compared it also to the Latin and the modern Spanish. It is not a very good translation, but it was quite interesting to see the old Spanish words, spelling and grammar. Now I can't find that link anymore. (I did a Google search too) Have you ever run across it? I think it was the first complete Bible to be made in the Spanish language. If you have the link, I would love to see it again.

Gracias,
Will K

(Brother Tim, get Brandon Staggs attention for a second so he won't hear this) Will, I have the 1569 Reina/Valera "Bible Of The Bear" for E-Sword. Apparently the .bbl files for texts of a given bible for E-Sword is simply a Microsoft ACCESS file. I have Word 97, I don't know if this database will work on E-Sword. I'd love to have Sam Gipp's Answer Book on E-Sword as a topic file. I'm not versed enough in OPEN OFFICE to try their database program, but many users of E-Sword have made modules they share. I have The Nit-Wit Translation(Watchtower), the NIV, New Living, NASB, New Jerusalem, Clementine Vulgate, Wyclife's, Bishops, Coverdale, Geneva, I have about 30-40 versions. No one has made Jerome's Vulgate yet that is available for one I've used since day one, The Online Bible. I'd love to have the Reformation translations(Luther, Diodoti, etc.). I checked the Louis Segond 1910 French but it is missing the Johannine Comma and I think also "firstborn" from Matthew 1:25, I didn't install it yet. There are many Mexican immigrants settled in my town, so many that the local Catholic Church tore down to the foundation their church building and rebuilt larger. I'd love to be able to print simple Spanish language tracts for them. I'm on disability, what our government so quaintly calls Social "Security"(yeah, and my dog chews bubblegum too) and am on literally a barter and trade economy. I'd love to have Swordsearcher but can't afford it. Keep me in mind if you hear anyone who has any off the wall E-sword modules. I got a fragmented NT in Gothic and two Saxon 4-Gospels someone made and also the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah Scroll someone made for OLB.

Grace and peace brother, it's good to be back in touch with you. Pray for those on FFF, as Chief Dan George once said, hell has come to breakfast.

Josey Wales

[Brother Tim]

One cannot distract Brandon. Sorry.

You can freely download SwordSearcher to evaluate for 30 days.

http://www.swordsearcher.com/download.html

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

I'd love to have the Reformation translations(Luther, Diodoti, etc.). I checked the Louis Segond 1910 French but it is missing the Johannine Comma and I think also "firstborn" from Matthew 1:25, I didn't install it yet.

Hi Tony. You may or may not already know about this site, but it is a great source for numerous foreign language Bibles. You can find the 1649 Diodati and the 1545 Luther translation there. If you do not know how to read German or any other language, just copy the words you want to have translated and take them over to a free translation site like Babel Fish. The Louis Segond is not a good bible, but the French Martin 1744 is quite good and the French Ostervald 1996 is also pretty good.

MANY Bibles both English and foreign language can be seen here:

http://unbound.biola.edu/

Here are a couple of free translation sites:

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/

and this one is very good:

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/enfo...al/translation

All of grace,
Will Kinney

[Brother Tim]

Tony asked:

I have a Reina/Valera of 1569 on my computer Bible program. ... Are there errors in it? Why have they not been corrected?

I do not know Spanish, but from what I have read, the RV has gone through a number of revisions (not just editions) over the years, some improving and other corrupting.

[George]

Aloha brother Tony,

Your quote:

"I apologize if I offended you brother George."

There isn't any need for an apology brother, it wasn't necessary. I wasn't offended by your comments; I only was asking WHO you were referring to.

If you check out the entire Thread you will see that I not only welcomed brother Manny Rodriguez, but I was in agreement with much of what he presented. Brother Manny is a missionary to Puerto Rico, and he seems to be a genuine Bible believer. I do not require that every Christian dance to the music that I play, however, some of the people who come on the Forum represent themselves as Bible believers, and if you asked them for a simple DEFINITION of the Holy Bible they'll start to refer to the "originals"; or they’ll start talking about "plenary inspiration"; or “The Greek”; or “The Hebrew”; or “The Textus Receptus”; or “The Majority Text”; etc.; etc.; ad nauseam (until it’s enough to make a Hippo gag)!

You and I both know that the “ORIGINAL” Oracles of God (the Scriptures) haven’t been seen by any one alive for the last 1,800 years (for the New Testament) and up to a 3,400 years (or more) for the Old Testament. Why is it so difficult for a genuine BIBLE believer to give a simple definition for the Holy Bible?

My point simply is - that the Holy BIBLE is a BOOK that you can hold in your hands, NOT some pile of manuscripts - gathering dust in the Pope's Library; or in some great “Classical” European University; or in some European Library. The Holy BIBLE is not the “Textus Receptus” or the so-called “Majority Text”; and the HOLY BIBLE is certainly NOT the modern texts (Nestles/Aland-Metzger) take your pick. All of those “texts” contain the word/words of God (some more than others); but none of them is THE HOLY BIBLE!

Because of all of the Humanists and Sophists (both within and without Christian circles) today, it is necessary to DEFINE words - so that we all can know who or what is being spoken of. I repeat: THE HOLY BIBLE is a BOOK that we can hold in our hands, and as such, if men are going to translate God’s word/words into various languages, they should be using THE HOLY BIBLE for there “exemplar” (foundation) and FINAL AUTHORITY in determining the words to be translated.

I am not trying to disparage the work of sincere Bible translators, but if they are going to translate THE HOLY BIBLE, then they should be USING THE HOLY BIBLE as their foundation! I am not saying that other translations can’t be used for comparison (the King James translators compared the previous English translations), what I am saying is simply this: in determining which words to translate into other languages, the King James Bible should be the FINAL AUTHORITY in determining which words to use. If it is NOT the FINAL AUTHORITY in determining the choice of words, then we are right back to square one – MULTIPLE AUTHORITIES!

As I said before brother, there is no need to apologize. If I thought you had done wrong or if I were offended I would accept your apology, and I understand your concerns; it’s just that I like CLARITY. It’s so much easier to discuss Scriptural issues if we all start out on the same page, and with a basic understanding (definition) of words.

You will notice that whenever I Post, I always site the “Thread” first (so people will know WHAT I am addressing); and then I either address an individual (and his comments) or the entire Forum (so people will know WHO I am addressing). I use the word “aloha” in my address to begin with, unless I perceive that I am dealing with someone that doesn’t deserve “aloha”; and once I am fairly sure I am dealing with one of the “brethren”, I will address them as brother or sister. I DO NOT use “titles” such as “Reverend”, or “Pastor”, or “Doctor” in addressing a brother in Christ.

At this point in my life (at 68 years old), other than preaching the Gospel (which ALL Christians should be doing – not just “pastors”) - I have four basic concerns: WORSHIPPING THE LORD (“in spirit and in truth”); SOUND DOCTRINE (I am a “moderate” Dispensationalist); CHRISTIAN LIVING {Concerning our conduct towards the brethren and the lost); and DEFENDING THE BIBLE (A BOOK that I can hold in my hands).

I am sure that there are certain “issues” that we disagree on brother, but on the other hand, you have a “unique perspective” on Scriptural matters that I appreciate – sometimes. This one thing I know for sure – there will come a day when we will all come together in the UNITY that is in the Lord Jesus Christ. And in that day ALL of our doctrinal differences are going to disappear in a moment. Until then, as long as a brother or sister doesn’t spout unmistakable heresy, I will try to make the effort to get along (as much as lieth in me).

[Brother Tim]

it’s enough to make a Hippo gag

That would not be a pretty sight! :

And here I was wondering why I get queasy reading some of the posts.

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

Tony asked:
I do not know Spanish, but from what I have read, the RV has gone through a number of revisions (not just editions) over the years, some improving and other corrupting.

Yes, unfortunately, the Spanish Bibles are gradually being changed and are omitting inspired Scripture and starting to adopt the critical text in some parts. Here are 7 examples of where the earlier Spanish Bible has the correct readings, but even in 1909 they revised it and made these changes by following the critical texts instead of the traditional Textus Receptus that underlies the KJB and the previous English and Reformation Bibles. The 1960 Reina Valera got a little worse and the 1995 edition is worse yet. But even the 1995 Reina Valera is far superiour to English versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman.

Mateo 15:8 - They removed the words "draws nigh" and "with their lips", which are also found in the cross reference of Isaiah 29:13..
(RV1909) Este pueblo (omisión) de labios me honra; Mas su corazón lejos está de mí.
Omisión: “se me acerca… con su boca y”
(Gr. “eggizei moi… to stomati aunton kai” ).

__________________________________________________ ______________________________
Marcos 2:17 - omits "to repentance"
(RV1909) Y oyéndolo Jesús, les dice: Los sanos no tienen necesidad de médico, mas los que tienen mal. No he venido á llamar á los justos, sino á los pecadores.
Omisión: “a arrepentimiento” (eis metanoian)

__________________________________________________ ________________
Marcos 9:24 - omits "with tears" and "Lord"
(RV1909) Y luego el padre del muchacho (Omisión) dijo clamando: (Omisión) Creo, ayuda mi incredulidad.
Omisión: “con lágrimas” (meta dakruon) y “Señor”(kurie).

__________________________________________________ _________________
Lucas 23:42 - omits the all important word "Lord".
(RV1909) Y dijo á Jesús: (Omisión)Acuérdate de mí cuando vinieres á tu reino
(Omisión: “Señor” gr. “kurie”. Quita el reconocimiento del Señorío de Cristo, por parte del ladrón en la cruz.
___________________________

Hechos 20:28 - important doctrinal words "the church of GOD" and makes it "the church of the Lord", thus removing the fact that the church was bought with the blood of GOD!
(SRV) Por tanto mirad por vosotros y por todo el rebaño en que el Espíritu Santo os ha puesto por obispos, para apacentar la iglesia del Señor, la cual ganó por su sangre.s conocida y aceptada que lee "iglesia del Señor".
__________________________________________________ _______________________________
1 Corintios 2:13 - omits the word "holy"
(RV1909) Lo cual también hablamos, no con doctas palabras de humana sabiduría, mas con doctrina del Espíritu (omisión), acomodando lo espiritual á lo espiritual.
OMISION: Falta la palabra "SANTO" (gr. agiou) nada menos que referido la tercera persona de la Santa Trinidad.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________
Efesios 3:9 - omits the important words "by Jesus Christ"
(RV1909) Y de aclarar á todos cuál sea la dispensación del misterio escondido desde los siglos en Dios, que crió todas las cosas.(omisión)
OMISION: "por Jesucristo" (dia iesou chistou).

Will K

[Daniel Haifley]

Sorry George,
Didn't mean to ignore you. Haven't had a lot of time to read all the posts, and must have missed yours. I understand how much time and research you and many others have put into this subject. I also have spent many hours and years. I didn't mean to misrepresent the history of the KJV in my choice of words, and you are right about the differences between the Cambridge and the Oxford. There are more differences than 3. I had only found 3 personally, but went to check based on your comments and found other lists. I know you don't know me or my stand or my background so you couldn't possibly know the context in which I make my comments. I haven't spent the time trying to explain my position, I've just kind of lobbed some rocks into the middle of the discussion.That is my error. I didn't feel it necessary because several on this forum have given statements that reflect my thoughts and beliefs - so I started on the assumption that we were all on the same page. Again - my mistake.

I believe that if an English speaking person is going to translate the Bible into another language that he should use the KJV as the standard. It is the undisputable standard for the English language. Interestingly enough every other translation (that I know of) tries to compare itself to the KJV in its introduction.

I believe that the if you add to the Words of the Book -God will add to you the plagues out of the Book. I believe that if you take away from the Words of the Book- God will take your part out of the Book of Life. I believe this is serious business.

But I also have some honest questions due to my research into other languages, as per my belief that we should attempt to get the Bible into all languages- which is more possible than getting everyone to understand English. The reason I even brought up the Cambridge vs. Oxford issue was to underscore my question. Some times translators make a choice in a translation. If the word conveys the same meaning of the Greek or Hebrew Text is the translation perfect?

For example:a friend of mine translated portions of the Bible into the Zapatec Indian language. In the story of the feeding of the 5,000 he ran accross a problem with translating the 12 basketfulls that remained. In the receptor language they had 3 words which said basket. Each completely different word spoke of a completely different size of basket. Which one was accurate. Did the disciples use a basket that slung under their arm, one that could be put on the shelf, or one that was the size of a barrel? Based on the context of the miracle the translator chose the biggest one? Was he right? Did he get it "perfect"? Did God help him in the translation? Will he be judged with Origin, Marcion, Wescott, Hort, etc. if he got it wrong?

These are not questions meant for argumentation. I am struggling with these questions. And am hoping to hear from some genuine Bible believers. The textual critics can not help me.

By the way we have put together a prayer journal of the 5,000+ language groups that don't have a Bible. It is at the publisher. For the last 2 years I and the children of my church have been praying every day for 72 countries that do not have a gospel witness at all. In fact we printed the countries on trading cards and have been distributing them for people to pray. In 2 years 33 of those countries have missionaries in them or going to them. We may not be able to sort all of this out, but we serve a God who can, and I am actively asking Him to help us.

[bibleprotector]

It is interesting that the "basket" issue, and how to translate that idea into a foreign language is given.

If we assume that the KJB is right, and the translation was being made from the KJB into an Indian dialect, the great problem still is that the translation is never going to be able to get it exactly right. It can be good. It can be sufficient. But it just misses something... and it is evident it misses something big. It misses the providential "seal of approval" behind it.

The level of knowledge of people today attempting to make a KJB-based translation is low. What I mean is that there is not an adequately high enough knowledge of the KJB, its complexity, in the English to those who know English, so much worse, or how much will a translator miss, or even misjudge, when turning it to another tongue.

Another thing is that the English tongue was prepared out of history way before the Reformation ever occurred, to be fit and ready for the very Word of God to be communicated in that language. People assume rightly that the OT is communicated perfectly in Hebrew, or the NT in Greek, but to get another language prepared, and able to take both Testaments, bound together, and fitly, excelling beyond the Latin, is a wonder that is the result of the providence of God.

The witness of men, like the Puritan Bible Committee of the 1650s, was that the KJB was the best translation in the world. They vainly tried to improve upon it, and were thwarted. Other attempts have utterly failed. If the English be so high, how is it that we could expect that a foreign translation is really going to be satisfactory, even if made by a cadre of men who use the KJB every day?

That is why I sincerely believe the solution is to get the people to learn English rather than showing them something which is supposed to be polished gold and the words of life in their language, which is but a poor reflexion of the authoritative KJB. But as long as the KJB is not acknowledged as standard, the whole issue of foreign translation will be fraught with perplexities. At least when the KJB is upheld, even the best foreign translations (if they exist in that dialect) may yet continue in a secondary position, and that as people learn English, what the world sees as wide open (English is the world's language) may be accessed by all the native tribes.

The Scripture indicates in several ways that all men do have the Bible. I think it is both defeatist and not understanding prophecy to claim that men do not have the Bible, or that over 5000 language groups are missing out, etc.

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

The Word is able to reach "you".

Col 1:6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

The Word is able to come unto "you".

Ro 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

The Scripture is made known to all nations.

Ro 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

God is able to reach them all.

When we look at the KJB, we are looking at God's way of communicating to the world. Sure there have been plenty of translations, and there are billions who yet need to acknowledge the Scripture. But we are observing the Word of God in transit. We are observing it at some point between its being first given and the end of the harvest. Just because people might not yet see the full harvest does not mean that God is unable to get the KJB out further and wider than it is this day.

And why the KJB? Because when you examine it in detail, you find that there is such a layer of truth, rightness and certainty in it, unlike looking at any Greek text today, or any other translation today. That's because the KJB gets it right as a text and translation, and it gets it the rightest because it is God's providentially appointed Word for all.

So it is better to pray for the preparation of the labourers with the KJB to be sent forth into 72 godless nations, than to be in a place where there appears no solution, no way, no direction and no real blessing, and all along we have the God who can do all things, and may be justly called upon to aid in the best and highest endevours of getting what is His perfect Word out among the nations.

Isa*49:22 Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.

Isa*59:19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.

Isa*62:10 Go through, go through the gates; prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast up the highway; gather out the stones; lift up a standard for the people.

Isa*5:26 And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly:

Isa*11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Isa*18:3 All ye inhabitants of the world, and dwellers on the earth, see ye, when he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains; and when he bloweth a trumpet, hear ye.