Why does everyone seem to need to come up with their own belief and doctrinal formula?

[Rockerduck]

100% False.

I recall KJVO-ists saying this for decades. Have you ever actually read translator notes from modern translations? I have.

The Wycliffe bible got the first punctuation. The KJV used it. All translations use the same punctuation as the KJV. John 3:16 for instance. All translation use John 3:16 and all the punctuations the KJV added along with interpolations. I have over 40 bibles, line by line they match the KJV. With exception of the Message bible, which combines passages.

 

[Rockerduck]

100% False.

I recall KJVO-ists saying this for decades. Have you ever actually read translator notes from modern translations? I have.

I'm not KJV only. I study God's word, not a particular bible. Stop the barbs.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Hmmm. I see that as backwards. The NLT corrected the major errors, especially of any translation with "James" in the title.

lol. Well you would be horribly mistaken

Do you speak Swahili? I don't speak Middle English. I know NKJV is not technically Middle English but it is still virtually unreadable to me. The sentence structure is like reading the Gospel of Yoda. The NASB is only a little better.

I agree, the old KJV is very hard to read.

I prefer the ESV, which competes with the NASB in claiming to be the most literal. It is too choppy by today's quick standards. Here is an example I use:

Jesus came inside from the rain.​

After coming inside from the rain, Jesus took his raincoat off.​

After taking off his raincoat, Jesus went down stairs.​

Once down stairs, he, Jesus, took off his galoshes.​

​

Other translations put this in a much more naturally flowing by today's standards single sentence. Sure, the order of taking off the galoshes and going down stairs might be reversed but I'd hardly call it a major issue.

it goes a little deeper than this with a few versions

 

[Wrangler]

The Wycliffe bible got the first punctuation. The KJV used it. All translations use the same punctuation as the KJV.

APPEAL TO DIVERSION. This has nothing to do with whether or not you read modern translators notes.

And I seriously doubt punctuation is the same when the sentence structures are different. In fact, I know it is not true. Still, it is besides the point.

 

[Wrangler]

I'm not KJV only.

Yet, you claims was KJVO-ists falsely claim, that all modern Bibles copy from KJ rather go to the source manuscripts.

 

[Wrangler]

lol. Well you would be horribly mistaken

It's a matter of opinion. You've made unsubstantiated claims. Why the NLT is Good, actually

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It's a matter of opinion. You've made unsubstantiated claims. Why the NLT is Good, actually

I speak from experience.

again, I had to go outside of the NLT and correct it during a teaching, as have many of our pastors. because what the NLY was just flat out in error. or it was not worded enough to show what was being said.

 

[Wrangler]

I speak from experience.

So do I my friend. So do I speak from experience. Beyond that, you replied way before being able to read the link and understand the objective analysis.

 

[marks]

it goes a little deeper than this with a few versions

Yeah!!

For example the NASB retains more of the original word order, which is why some find it choppy reading. Why is this important? Because in K Greek, word order shows emphasis.

So when someone discards it because they don't "like" how choppy it seems, they are discarding it for a lack of understanding of one of its true strengths.

Much love!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

So do I my friend. So do I speak from experience. Beyond that, you replied way before being able to read the link and understand the objective analysis.

I do not need to read the link.

I am just stating a facvt. I would never give a new believer an NLT as their main bible. EVER. I do not care hgow easy it is. I would want that person to be more mature before they ever read it.. The mistakes i saw and witnessed could cause a person to be lost with a false gospel..

 

[marks]

It's a matter of opinion. You've made unsubstantiated claims. Why the NLT is Good, actually

From your link:


. . . example: Rev 2:4 .

But I have this complaint against you. You don’t love me or each other as you did at first! (The Greek: ἀλλὰ ἔχω κατὰ σοῦ ὅτι τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες.)
Rev. 2:4 (NLT)

The phrase translated “you don’t love me or each other as you did at first” translates a much sparser Greek text: τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκες, “you have lost your first love.” What a difference! The NLT has added so much! And I’ll confess that I wish the translators had made some different decisions here, but I understand why they didn’t.

You see, there’s an ambiguity in the original—an ambiguity that is “kept” in many translations. There’s a number of exegetical questions that naturally arise as translators wrestle with the original Greek. This is a bit technical, so bear with me. The problem arises because the noun “love” (αγαπη) is what linguists call a “verbal noun.” That is, it is a noun that used to be a verb. It may look like a noun in the present sentence, but in reality its present form is a “transformation” of its primordial verbal state. As such, it still has verb-like qualities that attach to it. For example, it must have an implied “subject” and “direct object.” Who is doing the loving (the “subject” of our “verb”)? That’s obvious, the “you” being addressed in the passage. But whom are these “subjects” failing to love (the “object” of our “verb”)? That’s not obvious.4 It could be Jesus, or it could be the church, or it could be outsiders, or it could be all three, or it could be unresolvably ambiguous.5

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The better translation doesn't "solve ambiguities" for the reader, it just presents what God said.

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

I do not need to read the link.

I am just stating a facvt. I would never give a new believer an NLT as their main bible

You are calling your opinion a fact. I have given many newbies the NLT. They love it and have not got lost. That is a fact!

 

[Wrangler]

However, these are minor issues.

Agreed. Minor issues.

 

[marks]

Agreed. Minor issues.

Agreed with what???

I've editted my post to prevent such misuse in the future.

Your link gave examples, and called those examples minor issues. Then, it gave the example I posted.

So your response seems rather misleading to me. This doesn't look good for you.

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

Agreed with what???

LOL. ‘Minor issues’ is what you quoted from my link. I agree.

KJVO-ists take ‘minor issue’ to be cause of one losing salvation.

 

[marks]

LOL. ‘Minor issues’ is what you quoted from my link. I agree.

KJVO-ists take ‘minor issue’ to be cause of one losing salvation.

Nevermind. I'm only interested in honest discussion.

Personally I think this little exchange goes a long way towards answering @ScottA 's OP. Some would rather play games then deal in truth.

Much love!

 

[ScottA]

"Private Interpretation" is the buzzword some of our Catholic brothers and sisters (yes, I do regard them as my brothers and sisters in Christ, though many would not reciprocate that status back to me) have used to criticize the Protestant practice of allowing the laity to interpret scripture. Interpreting God's Word (and that has a broader scope than just "prophesy") is much too important a job to let every Tom, Dick, and Harry do it. 40,000 different denominations and nasty internet forum debates and "everyone coming up with their own beliefs and doctrine" is the natural and logical consequence of this practice. It is a systemic problem with its historical roots in the Protestant Reformation.

Even so--and replying also to my own OP question--such a practice has been the order of the day, of "trampling"...until the times of the gentiles are fulfilled (Luke 21:24).

The purpose being, that with the gentiles being invited into the fold of Christ and salvation, the gentiles and their/our ways would also be exposed, just as was the case for Israel who went before us.

 

[ScottA]

Do you speak Swahili? I don't speak Middle English. I know NKJV is not technically Middle English but it is still virtually unreadable to me. The sentence structure is like reading the Gospel of Yoda. The NASB is only a little better.

Hahaha tongues fulfilled!

 

[Wrangler]

Nevermind. I'm only interested in honest discussion.

No, you are not interested in honest discussion when you quote "minor" issue than get all flustered when I agree with what you quoted.

 

[ScottA]

Upset again that others aren't blindly following you? View attachment 55045

Are you quoting snide remarks of the Pharisees? - You should start a thread!