Letter from Dr. Frank Logsdon Editor of NASV

[Guest]

Really? The preservation of the Holy Scriptures isn't important? The Holy Scriptures being perverted via the "updated translation" gimmick isn't important??? If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? The foundation of whatever you believe to be the real "work" of the Kingdom comes from the Bible. Of course Satan would attack it! Of course Satan would, as in the Garden, through subtilty, question and change what God said. Thats the first lesson in Scripture--the Devil twists what God says in a crafty manner. The problem is none from your side teach this, because it would immediatley bring them and thei work under testing and scrutiny!

So you believe the Devil never, not once in 2000 years tried to pervert the Words of the Living God. Not one time in the over 100 "updatings" of the KJV was any devil to ever be found working??? You believe this?

I think most if not all on this forum hold that the preservation of the original words, thoughts and concepts of the books of the Bible are important. You assume much to think that all "on our side" aren't aware that the Devil wishes to pervert what God has said.

However, you assert that the KJV is the only translation that correctly preserves the original words, thoughts and concepts, which I guess marks it as inspired. You also seem to hold that any other translation has corruptions or mistranslations that pervert the Gospel. That is a leap in logic compared to your above statement. Please correct me if I assume your beliefs wrongly.


We're still awaiting the evidence for...

...an example of a critical Christian tenet that is perverted by the other versions?

I'm afraid that their aren't any, which brings me back to my point.
No translation, including the KJV, is inspired or perfect. Many modern (within the last 100 years) English translations are at least 95% accurate to the manuscripts we have, with none of the inaccuracies perverting the message of the Gospel.

I encourage you to rethink your dogmatic posture on an untenable idea.

[Guest]

SSS,

The article you pasted about unicorns was actually a pretty good response to the question I posed for that particular example. I knew that I was probably not the first to think of that question.

However, Dave (Schoel) is right. You didn't answer my main question about what major Christian doctrine you feel is corrupted by other versions of the bible.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Guest]

The problem with answering the two questions so far, is that each of them have been answered--book length answers, over the years. So I must conclude that either these two questions are sincere, and the ones asking actually don't know, or this is simply baiting.

I have a question that I would like answered first:

Where in the Bible does it say that inspiration is limtied to the original autographs, and no translation can be inspired? I eagerly await for proof for that which you assume to be true.

[Guest]

The problem with answering the two questions so far, is that each of them have been answered--book length answers, over the years.

Not looking for a book length answer, just yours. This is a discussion board.

So I must conclude that either these two questions are sincere, and the ones asking actually don't know, or this is simply baiting.

It's a sincere question, the easiest thing to do if you'd like to prove your point is to stop evading them and just answer them. That would greatly help your case, don't you think?

I have a question that I would like answered first:

Where in the Bible does it say that inspiration is limtied to the original autographs, and no translation can be inspired? I eagerly await for proof for that which you assume to be true.

I hate to sound like a 6 year old here, but....we asked you first.

[Guest]

No, some questions are not "simply" answered. It is the tactic of baiters to aske questions that presume their assumptions are correct, and then seek to trivialize that which requires study.

To document the perversion of the Holy Scriptures does require a book, for it has been going on for hundreds of years, and it all needs to be documented.

I will give you one for starters, but you do need to answer my questions, becasue they expose presuppositions on your part that need to be PROVED.

Micah 5:2 in the KJV teaches the Diety of Christ, and in the NIV, teaches he has an "origin" and that it was long ago. Arian heresy to the core. Now then, we shall see if you react in the typical Laodicean fashion most do(Shrug your shoulders as if no big deal), or if you react rightly to such perversion.

[Guest]

No, some questions are not "simply" answered. It is the tactic of baiters to aske questions that presume their assumptions are correct, and then seek to trivialize that which requires study.

I am not aware of any books that treat the subject of "why" it is inspired. Only books that presuppose that it is and then attack other translations because they are different.

You answered my question with a question, which I answered, and then proceed to ask you for the third time and again no answer. So I guess I am going to bail out of this thread and let you have the last word since you are not interested in a real discussion.

Hope you stick around for some more topics.

God bless,

[Guest]

I'm done too.

I'm sorry Sola, but I don't have time for what I percieve to be evasive tactics and condescending arrogance.

You're going to have to do better than that to prove that the diety of Christ is not portrayed in the Alexandrian translations.

By the way, you've tried to turn the question around. But you're the one making the extraordinary assertion so the burden of proof is on you bro.

Happy trails.

[Guest]

The unfortunate thing is that becasue neither of you two actually understand the issues involved, nor the enormity of the material needed to be familiar with to have a common frame of reference to discuss this in a productive way, you assume I am evasive and think these issues are answered with little soundbites. That is a dead give-away that you do not understand things.

I gave you one simple Scripture which shows how the NIV departs from the KJV, and actually teaches blatant Arianism! And you want to depart. How convenient! SO much for your deep desire for evidence. I gave you just one example, and the discussion is over! Typical. So then, I can conclude, that the issue was never a desire for truth, but just to argue and attempt to entangle me in my words. The Lord refused to going early on. They follow the same patterns.

[Guest]

Hi SSS,

I appreciate your apology to everyone this morning. In light of that, I’m willing to pick up our discussion again. Just to clear things up, I want to re-iterate that I’m not very familiar with the arguments of the KJO debate. I’m aware of it, but not familiar with it. The first words I wrote when I joined this thread were:

Hi S.S.S.,

I'm not real familiar with all of the arguments in the KJV only debate. Can you maybe give an example of a critical Christian tenet that is perverted by the other versions?

So, I assure you, I’m not baiting you with my questions, I’m sincerely wanting to know where you’re coming from. You have obviously studied this topic much more than I, and the majority of the participants on this forum. But that doesn’t mean we’ll necessarily come down on the same side as you.

Having said all that, please indulge my further probing into your example:

You wrote:

Micah 5:2 in the KJV teaches the Diety of Christ, and in the NIV, teaches he has an "origin" and that it was long ago. Arian heresy to the core.

Please explain what you mean by this. I’ve pasted some samples of different versions here to compare.




Textus Receptus (Based on my understanding of the origins of these versions)

Mic 5:2
2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
KJV

Mic 5:2
2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting."
NKJV

Mic 5:2
2 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.
ASV

Mic 5:2
2 But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah,
who are little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me
one who is to be ruler in Israel,
whose origin is from of old,
from ancient days.
RSV



Alexandrian (Based on my understanding of the origins of these versions)

Mic 5:2
2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity."
NAS

Mic 5:2
2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
His goings forth are from long ago,
From the days of eternity."
NASU

Mic 5:2
2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times."
NIV


It seems to me that some TR translations say “origin” and others say “goings forth” and likewise the Alexandrian translations. (I could be wrong about the textual origins of some of these translations, it was based on a quick google search so the information may or may not be accurate)

So my questions are as follows:

1. How would you define the difference is between the words “goings forth” and “origin”?

2. How does this establish Arian doctrine in these translations when so many other verses in the same translations seem to affirm the Word is eternal?

3. How do you know that the “origin” is not a better rendering of the original word?



Before you answer, let me just say that I’m not a huge fan of the NIV either. But I for one am not yet convinced of any conspiracy to corrupt doctrine by it’s creators.

I look forward to hearing your answer. Please don’t refer me to a book or lengthy article as I don’t have time to read them. I’m not looking for a short sound bite answer, but I prefer something briefer than a book and in your own words.

Lord bless.

[Guest]

One thing to clarify:

The Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian Text refer only to versions of the Greek New Testament. The Old Testament (e.g., Micah 5:2) is not involved in the textual debate between these two options. Most English versions of the Old Testament follow a combination of the Masoretic Text and the information discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The differences in the way various versions render Micash 5:2 reflects, not a different manuscript selection, but different translational choices. None of the Bibles that use the Alexandrian Text for the New Testament (with the exception of the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses) have removed the doctrine of the deity of Christ. That is, none of them support Arianism.