Question ...

[HMS_Beagle]

The bottom line is as I have stated all along: nothing -- NOTHING!!! -- will ever get you people to admit the obvious.

You could try presenting some actual positive supporting evidence for your claims instead of just running your big mouth for once. But I'm sure that approach never occurred to you.

[Kbertsche]

Yeah, right, whatever. You all well-rehearsed on being as slippery as a greased eel, KB.

The bottom line is as I have stated all along: nothing -- NOTHING!!! -- will ever get you people to admit the obvious. No evidence, no argument, no logic ... nothing! Christ in person would certainly do it but it's not His time to show up just yet.

As you know we are in the middle of an election campaign ans I've been watching some of Hillary Clinton's mega-criminal double-speak dating back to the 1990's. It's hard and scary to believe that a creature like that actually exists. Well, truth be told, TEs/OECs/Humanists/Atheists/Materialists (TEOHAMs) often remind me of that same kind of behavior.

Maybe (I say "maybe" because I don't know you well enough to determine either way) you're one of the 'better' ones - who knows? But speaking in general the TEOHAMs are, bluntly, not intellectually honest. They often sound like Bill Clinton did when he was undergoing Congressional inquiry. The infamous, "It depends what is IS" exemplifies their tactics.

This is too bad because if only they'd be honest with themselves and with others then a good resolution would be quick. But you know what? I think that these are all things that have to be as they are. It's all part of the 'End Times' signs that must occur so that His Word be fulfilled. I remind myself of that every now and then.

Jorge

FYI, my comments on the accuracy of the NET Bible translation have nothing to do with YEC/OEC. That's not how I determine accuracy of a Bible translation.

And no translation is uniformly accurate. If you are honest, you should even admit to some inaccuracies in the KJV. (Unless you are like some of the radical KJV-only folks who I met in Texas, who when confronted with discrepancies between the KJV and the Greek, claimed that the Greek had been corrupted and that God had miraculously corrected its errors with the KJV!)

[Jorge]

Interesting. What are your criteria?

My study took many years and, in a way, has never stopped (I'm always 'looking').
What I am saying is, there is no way to answer your question without a dissertation.

In very few words: my main strategy was based on discovering distortions to the Bible.
Distortions in the general sense of that word: additions, deletions, mythologizing,
allegorizing, ad hoc interpretations, ad hoc categorizations, rewriting, reordering, etc.
Distortions exactly as those that have become common and accepted nowadays.

Every modern version-translation is guilty of this, some less, some worse, some far worse.

It is for no small, trivial or ignorant reason that I settled on 1611AKJV.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Previously I had written:

But you are right on one thing: the NET Bible wasn't one that I had [used back then]. But you see, my conclusion very strongly indicated to NOT trust any modern translation unless and until there was proof to the contrary.

Tell you what: I'll go take a quick look. My experience in this will know what to look for so it shouldn't take too long. I assume there is a copy of this on the internet. I'll report back later.

Okay, that didn't take me long. Just as I had suspected (based on the conclusion from my studies 15+ years ago) I'll NOT trust or use the New English Translation (NET) except to further illustrate the heretical-blasphemous tendencies in modern "bible" versions-translations. Examples are numerous; I only had to review a dozen or so verses among those that I had collated years ago. There I found the same 'crimes' being perpetrated and in pretty much in the same way. Again, exactly as I had expected - I wasn't surprised in the least.

************************

By the way, I found this to be quite interesting (and so should you):

Their note # 22 on Genesis 1 reads as shown below.
As an OEC, you should take notice (but probably won't).
It echoes some of what I've been saying here ... forever. I really appreciated this bit of honesty.



Facts such as this easily explain why TEs/OECs have performed incredible intellectual somersaults in order to distort or eliminate altogether Genesis 1-11. Hey, whatever it takes, right?

Jorge

Of course they are meant to describe a 24 hour day. In any allegorical or metaphorical text many of the elements of the text are symbolic or representative of the object of the metaphor. But the key point is, the text includes descriptive elements inconsistent with reality - like the raqia and the waters above. Thus we know the text should NOT be taken as a scientifically viable description of the Creation act. It is that simple. The standard interpretive model is that when scripture refers to elements in a phenomenal or culturally derived way that is archaic in form (i.e. scientifically wrong), then those elements are treated as conveyers of the message or artifacts of the culture, not the message itself. We do not consider the Bible as 'teaching' those elements. This is how we handle the declaration the moon and sun stood still on Joshua's long day. This is how we handle the 'windows of heaven' (Gen 7 and many others) and 'the sun hastens under the Earth' (Eccles 1).


Jim

[Wally]

Interesting. What are your criteria?

It validates his prejudices.

[One Bad Pig]

My study took many years and, in a way, has never stopped (I'm always 'looking').
What I am saying is, there is no way to answer your question without a dissertation.

In very few words: my main strategy was based on discovering distortions to the Bible.
Distortions in the general sense of that word: additions, deletions, mythologizing,
allegorizing, ad hoc interpretations, ad hoc categorizations, rewriting, reordering, etc.
Distortions exactly as those that have become common and accepted nowadays.

Every modern version-translation is guilty of this, some less, some worse, some far worse.

It is for no small, trivial or ignorant reason that I settled on 1611AKJV.

Jorge

Thanks. What is your baseline? I generally work from the NKJV (not least because it tends to identify in the NT where the TR varies from the MT (and from the NU text upon which most modern translations are based), but I like to consult other translations as well.

[Juvenal]

... and from the NU text ...

Decrypt, please.

[One Bad Pig]

Decrypt, please.

From here

[Juvenal]

From here

Never heard of these UBS folks before. Is that OT?

[One Bad Pig]

Never heard of these UBS folks before. Is that OT?

No, NT.

[Jorge]

FYI, my comments on the accuracy of the NET Bible translation have nothing to do with YEC/OEC. That's not how I determine accuracy of a Bible translation.

As you should know (because I've stated so often) I've been studying-researching both areas (YEC/OEC and Bible translations) for a very long time. Take it from me (or don't - your choice), there is undoubtedly correlation/overlap. Some of the "bible" versions were constructed precisely to support an extra-biblical agenda (you must know this, right?).

The JW "bible" is one example. The Mormon "bible" is another. The Source New Testament (written to support the LGBT agenda) is a third example. There are many others for other agendas. And, yes, when the TE/OEC took a strong foothold (beginning of the 20th century) , "bible" versions started coming out that directly or indirectly supported the TE/OEC agenda (e.g., by adding footnotes to "explain what was really meant").

And no translation is uniformly accurate. If you are honest, you should even admit to some inaccuracies in the KJV. (Unless you are like some of the radical KJV-only folks who I met in Texas, who when confronted with discrepancies between the KJV and the Greek, claimed that the Greek had been corrupted and that God had miraculously corrected its errors with the KJV!)

Yup, I will always admit the truth and submit to it. Here's what my studies revealed: there is not a single "error" in the 1611AKJV that is of 'substance' ... they are all 'cosmetic'. If you think otherwise, show me an error of substance. Also, many of the alleged errors in the 1611AKJV are not errors at all. All it takes is some clear-minded, unbiased, scholarly investigation to refute most of the allegations. The same definitely cannot be said of any modern version - there the errors are of substance and are legion.

My study on translations-versions of the Bible took me into the area of "errors" in the Bible and when I was done examining the evidence I felt stronger than ever on the 1611AKJV.

Jorge

[Kbertsche]

Never heard of these UBS folks before. Is that OT?

The "NU" that the NKJV uses is an unusual acronym/abbreviation; I've never seen it before. But as BadPig quoted, it is apparently a conflation of the abbreviations for two main critical texts of the Greek New Testament, the NA and the UBS. NA stands for "Nestle-Aland"; it is currently on edition 28 (when I quoted the Greek text earlier in this thread, it was from the NA28). UBS stands for "United Bible Society"; this text is currently on edition 5, generally abbreviated as UBS5.

The two texts are very similar. They both attempt to reconstruct the original text by working from the earliest manuscripts and trying to understand the textual variations. You can examine them both here: https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/

[rwatts]

As you should know (because I've stated so often) I've been studying-researching both areas (YEC/OEC and Bible translations) for a very long time.


...


Also, many of the alleged errors in the 1611AKJV are not errors at all. All it takes is some clear-minded, unbiased, scholarly investigation to refute most of the allegations. The same definitely cannot be said of any modern version - there the errors are of substance and are legion.

My study on translations-versions of the Bible took me into the area of "errors" in the Bible and when I was done examining the evidence I felt stronger than ever on the 1611AKJV.

Jorge

Given your expertise in translations, biblical languages and a host of other fields of study Jorge, then I need you here:-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...Reece-and-Help

If I'd kown about all your studies then I would have addressed my question directly to you.

[oxmixmudd]

As you should know (because I've stated so often) I've been studying-researching both areas (YEC/OEC and Bible translations) for a very long time. Take it from me (or don't - your choice), there is undoubtedly correlation/overlap. Some of the "bible" versions were constructed precisely to support an extra-biblical agenda (you must know this, right?).

The JW "bible" is one example. The Mormon "bible" is another. The Source New Testament (written to support the LGBT agenda) is a third example. There are many others for other agendas. And, yes, when the TE/OEC took a strong foothold (beginning of the 20th century) , "bible" versions started coming out that directly or indirectly supported the TE/OEC agenda (e.g., by adding footnotes to "explain what was really meant").



Yup, I will always admit the truth and submit to it. Here's what my studies revealed: there is not a single "error" in the 1611AKJV that is of 'substance' ... they are all 'cosmetic'. If you think otherwise, show me an error of substance. Also, many of the alleged errors in the 1611AKJV are not errors at all. All it takes is some clear-minded, unbiased, scholarly investigation to refute most of the allegations. The same definitely cannot be said of any modern version - there the errors are of substance and are legion.

My study on translations-versions of the Bible took me into the area of "errors" in the Bible and when I was done examining the evidence I felt stronger than ever on the 1611AKJV.

Jorge

Have you ever noticed that he AKJV refers to the 'firmament'. It was written in a time when scientific knowledge of the heavens was minimal, and they didn't have a reason to try to weasel out of the honest, true meaning of raqia (Yes - I know that they were transliterating from the latin vulgate's firmamentum - but that just goes to show you how raqia gets translated when the translator doesn't have 'an agenda' to make sure the text is seen as scientifically correct, as opposed to textually accurate).

Jim

[JonathanL]

The two texts are very similar.

It's been my understanding that as of the latest editions they are not just "very similar", but practically identical.