Bible Verses

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maria

Maria

Active Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
10,305
Reaction score
0
Reba said:
I use KJV most of the time. Sometimes I use other translations (such as the Amplified Bible) for additional study. I have a Hebrew OT and Greek NT for reference but I really can't read them. :) But KJV is my standard Bible.

I find it very interesting when our missionaries visit us. They always bring examples of Bibles in the various languages from each country.
Click to expand...

I use KJV most of the time, too. KJV is very gem because, it's God's spiritual language. :)
Anyways, honey -- I would like to ask you somethin' about the book besides KJV. Do you know anythin' about so called "Scofield" bible ? Wonderin' if that book is good ?
I did some researchin' on that book but, I wasn't 100% sure if, it is really good book.
 
CyberRed said:
I use KJV most of the time, too. KJV is very gem because, it's God's spiritual language. :)
Anyways, honey -- I would like to ask you somethin' about the book besides KJV. Do you know anythin' about so called "Scofield" bible ? Wonderin' if that book is good ?
I did some researchin' on that book but, I wasn't 100% sure if, it is really good book.
Click to expand...
The "Scofield" Bible is a KJV Bible. C.I. Scofield added his study notes to the Bible. It is still all KJV. It is clear in the Bible which parts are his notes, and which parts are Scripture. It is fine to use Scofield, as long as you remember that those are just study notes added. His notes are not equal to Scripture. He never claimed that his notes are Scripture. They are just notes to understanding.

I have a Scofield Bible, in addition to my regular KJV. I prefer my regular KJV but sometimes I use the Scofield for reference study. My Pastor uses Scofield.

Here is a link that gives some information about Scofield:

http://www.rayofhopechurch.com/scofield.htm

If you can, go to a book store and look thru a Scofield, to get an idea of how it is arranged.
 
Personally I think the best thing is not to rely on a single translation but to look through many--including in different languages if you happen to speak them. For instance, by looking at a German Bible I once got additional understanding of the 23rd Psalm that is very rarely clear in any English translation (though I did see it in one version I compared). I'm not yet THAT advanced in German, but I knew enough to spot the difference, and to consult a friend who is a native speaker and theology student, to make sure I was translating correctly.

At some point I hope to take courses to learn Greek and Hebrew so I can read the texts in their original form. Obviously I do not believe, as Muslims do, that this sort of thing is compulsory, and I think God makes an effort to guide those who are reading texts in their native language. But, I think it makes a great option if that's something you're skilled with.

The reason I suggest this is because no translation is going to completely capture the full meaning. Human language is imperfect and actually restricts thought in a way, by categorizing and shaping it. Look at the account of the Tower of Babel for a good explanation of why that came to be so. So, I think if one does have the inclination, that this is a good research process to go through.

One amazing resource for this is: http://www.biblegateway.org

The only downside of that site is that for the most part, there are no notes explaining why a particular translation was used. And even on that, it's best to look at multiple sets of study notes, because frankly, I do not trust everybody making commentaries to be divinely inspired. (I am not going to lay out criteria as to how one would discern that; that's up to each of you to pray about and figure out for yourselves.)

Obviously I don't trust myself to be perfect either, not by a long shot. But I at least want to make a good-faith effort to get to know the Scripture as well as I can, and for someone who loves languages as I do, that means getting into the details of translations.
 
Reba said:
The "Scofield" Bible is a KJV Bible. C.I. Scofield added his study notes to the Bible. It is still all KJV. It is clear in the Bible which parts are his notes, and which parts are Scripture. It is fine to use Scofield, as long as you remember that those are just study notes added. His notes are not equal to Scripture. He never claimed that his notes are Scripture. They are just notes to understanding.

I have a Scofield Bible, in addition to my regular KJV. I prefer my regular KJV but sometimes I use the Scofield for reference study. My Pastor uses Scofield.

Here is a link that gives some information about Scofield:

http://www.rayofhopechurch.com/scofield.htm

If you can, go to a book store and look thru a Scofield, to get an idea of how it is arranged.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I will check the link out. This comin' Sunday, I will ask one of my friends at church to see about Christian stores nearby...will look through a Scofield to see if that is the book I was lookin' for. :)
 
Rose Immortal said:
Personally I think the best thing is not to rely on a single translation but to look through many--including in different languages if you happen to speak them. For instance, by looking at a German Bible I once got additional understanding of the 23rd Psalm that is very rarely clear in any English translation (though I did see it in one version I compared). I'm not yet THAT advanced in German, but I knew enough to spot the difference, and to consult a friend who is a native speaker and theology student, to make sure I was translating correctly.

At some point I hope to take courses to learn Greek and Hebrew so I can read the texts in their original form. Obviously I do not believe, as Muslims do, that this sort of thing is compulsory, and I think God makes an effort to guide those who are reading texts in their native language. But, I think it makes a great option if that's something you're skilled with.

The reason I suggest this is because no translation is going to completely capture the full meaning. Human language is imperfect and actually restricts thought in a way, by categorizing and shaping it. Look at the account of the Tower of Babel for a good explanation of why that came to be so. So, I think if one does have the inclination, that this is a good research process to go through.

One amazing resource for this is: http://www.biblegateway.org

The only downside of that site is that for the most part, there are no notes explaining why a particular translation was used. And even on that, it's best to look at multiple sets of study notes, because frankly, I do not trust everybody making commentaries to be divinely inspired. (I am not going to lay out criteria as to how one would discern that; that's up to each of you to pray about and figure out for yourselves.)

Obviously I don't trust myself to be perfect either, not by a long shot. But I at least want to make a good-faith effort to get to know the Scripture as well as I can, and for someone who loves languages as I do, that means getting into the details of translations.
Click to expand...

Thank you for an extra link -- will research through it. But, however, I will still stick with KJV. :)
 
OK--but just be aware that sometimes the KJV has got mistranslations or in other places the translation is good, but no longer really clear in modern English.
 
Reba said:
The "Scofield" Bible is a KJV Bible. C.I. Scofield added his study notes to the Bible. It is still all KJV. It is clear in the Bible which parts are his notes, and which parts are Scripture. It is fine to use Scofield, as long as you remember that those are just study notes added. His notes are not equal to Scripture. He never claimed that his notes are Scripture. They are just notes to understanding.

I have a Scofield Bible, in addition to my regular KJV. I prefer my regular KJV but sometimes I use the Scofield for reference study. My Pastor uses Scofield.

Here is a link that gives some information about Scofield:

http://www.rayofhopechurch.com/scofield.htm

If you can, go to a book store and look thru a Scofield, to get an idea of how it is arranged.
Click to expand...
I have a Scofield Study Bible (KJV), but I learn that C.I. Scofield supported the Critical Text (CT) instead of the Textus Receptus (TR). I fully reject the CT because the CT is behind the conspiracy of the Roman Catholic system.

Look at this Scofield Bible with the CT. Let me give you an explanation of how Scofield used the CT for the references or footnotes.

The footnote on Mark 16:9-20 said,
The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vactican, and others have it with partial omission and variations. But it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.
Click to expand...
Scofield is right about the footnote, but he is wrong because he did NOT give you the manuscript evidence concerning the last verses of Mark 16. Why did he not answer the fact? Where is the evidence?

Marginal notes tell you some phrases of the passage from the CT and replaced for other meanings or phrases. Also the introduction negates the AV (KJV). I disagree with that.

I do not recommend the CT reflecting to marginal notes and footnotes in the Scofield Study Bible. Other explanations THAN the CT are good.
 
CyberRed said:
Do you know anythin' about so called "Scofield" bible ? Wonderin' if that book is good ?
Click to expand...
Look for my post to Reba about "Scofield" Bible.
 
Rose Immortal said:
OK--but just be aware that sometimes the KJV has got mistranslations or in other places the translation is good, but no longer really clear in modern English.
Click to expand...
Mistranslations. Why is that? Please explain.
 
Askjo said:
Look for my post to Reba about "Scofield" Bible.
Click to expand...

Yep, I read your post concernin' to Reba's post. Thank you for explainin' a little bit more about Scofield. I am lookin' for a depth like Pastor's, because I love to read more than just what's basic in it. My heart couldn't stop spongin'. :lol:
 
Askjo said:
Mistranslations. Why is that? Please explain.
Click to expand...

Two from Genesis, for instance. One case of something that does not make very much sense in modern English is with the word "helpmeet" used to describe Eve. This term can be misconstrued to seem like Eve is a servant of Adam. The NIV translation, for example, refers to her as a helper, which makes more sense. You can have a helper on a task at work, for instance, but that helper may be your equally-ranked colleague.

Another is the common translation in Genesis that Eve was created from a "rib" of Adam. The NIV explains that another possible translation is that she was created from "part of the man's side".

Another important translation note, too, with books where the original text is in Greek: There were no quotation marks in Greek at that time. While there were some grammatical indicators, a translator has leeway to decide where they do and don't belong. Consider the Epistles where people are replying to other people's letters and think of the potential troubles that could cause to translators.
 
Rose Immortal said:
Two from Genesis, for instance. One case of something that does not make very much sense in modern English is with the word "helpmeet" used to describe Eve. This term can be misconstrued to seem like Eve is a servant of Adam. The NIV translation, for example, refers to her as a helper, which makes more sense. You can have a helper on a task at work, for instance, but that helper may be your equally-ranked colleague...
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call "helpmeet" a mistranslation. It is not a common word in American English but there is nothing wrong with it. I never thought that it meant Eve was a "servant" to Adam. I think "helpmeet" shows a better relationship between man and woman than "helper". "Helpmeet", to me means someone who is a partner, with a personality, characteristics, attributes, and skills that compliment the other person's. "Helper", to me, sounds more like an employee.
 
You're very fortunate that you understood the meaning through that word. But I've definitely seen a lot of people who aren't as discerning as you.
 
And, also I like the way how all the words are in KJV Holy Bible, because it's God's Pure Mind and His Language ( my first spiritual "mother language" ) rather than a man's who translated the words into different versions. A man's mind is not exactly as God's that could dim the light in me. I prefer God's Light to grow in me when I read His own language. Cloudy mind from man's and Clear mind from God are 2 different things that could influence inside the person's heart and mind from readin'.

I've also noticed that some words are missin'/addin' in different versions of bible like NIV, NLT and others, except KJV. Some of them show the little "son" of God instead of big capital "Son" of God, for instance.

I also learned that the company named Zondervan published Satan bible. I don't want to purchase any of those different versions of bible through that company. I just found out about this a couple months ago through my Christian friend who sent me an email about it.

There's only FEW discernin' Christian friends I could trust and rely on about general things I could ask and discuss ... just to be on safe side against the wiles of the devil.
 
CyberRed--Pardon my confusion, but I still do not get why you consider the KJV God's pure language when English is not even the language it was originally written in. I'm having a hard time following the logic behind it.

No translation is perfect--and I actually will agree with you about the NIV's lack of capitalization. I would also fault them for improper placement of subject headings in the middle of chapters. They're intrusions on the text that can end up breaking crucial chains of thought right down the middle. But, I could find fault in any translation, and I will not champion one translation over the other. That's the thing...no translation is perfect. Even with the Old Testament original manuscripts you've got variation between the Masoretic and Syriac manuscripts, plus the Septuagint, which was a translation into Greek that was quoted by Jesus in the NT and at times seems to vary slightly from the translation you might see in the OT section of your Bible.

All of this is why I think it's good to look at multiple translations--and why I think the Bible cannot be read without two things, ranked in this order: prayer, and reason. That is, pray to God about a matter, that He will show you the chain of reasoning as to which solution is correct. God's actually pretty reasonable--after all, He invented logic! :)
 
To be honest with you, all of other different versions of bibles ( NASB, NIV, NLT, NKJV and others, except KJV ) are the New Age Versions. I am not a New Ager.

I will give an example here :

Romans 1:20 ( King James Version - KJV )
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

New International Version ( NIV )
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
****
Colossians 2:9 ( King James Version - KJV )
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

New International Version ( NIV )
"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,"
****
Acts 17:29 ( King James Version - KJV )
"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."

New International Version ( NIV )
"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill."

Ok, you see there's somethin' wrong in these picture with NIV comparin' to KJV's.
In KJV, there's the word "Godhead", but in NIV - they are usin' "divine nature, Deity and divine". That "divine nature, Deity and divine" are famously used in New Age Movement. After Sept. 11th, 2001 when the 2 planes hit the Twin Towers in New York City - everythin' changed. All ( not really ALL, but to some degree ) christians like Billy Graham, David Wilkerson and so forth are joined in Oneness for New Age Movement - they believe that we all are in One.. believin' that we believe in the same and one God. That's their slimlight messages, not to true believers who could discern the difference.

See these scripture what Satan is doin' today as he did for centuries :

Genesis 3:1
"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field..."

So, it obviously to me that the different versions of bible I just show above... are corrupted - not the King James Version Holy Bible that I know of. In different versions of the bible, I discovered that they also omitted "h/Holy" and "Christ", because that don't belong to the Enlightment today ( New Age Movement ). New Agers believe that they are "gods". It's why I choose to stay with King James Version and that's what I mean about God's pure word..it came from His Pure Mind and Heart for He is Holy.

Proverbs 30:5
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."
 
I still see two words referring to the exact same concept. I would say that the KJV has more literary beauty to it, but for me there is no difference in that case. Even if the New Agers use the word differently, I know exactly what is meant by it in the Bible. And I am even starting to develop a limited command of Greek (very limited--I haven't had the opportunity yet to take a formal course) and I at least know what sources are available to explain exactly what an original Greek word was supposed to mean.

Now I will pose a different question to you, to see if I can get a clearer idea of your thinking--you would not expect a native Spanish speaker to read the KJV, would you? Would you assert that the Spanish speaker has been deprived full access to God's Word, because they either cannot read English, or do not know enough about English for the KJV to make any sense to them?
 
I supposed they have KJV Bible in Spanish - it also have KJV Bible in English besides KJV Bible in Spanish to read both.

Click on the "bible" image where they will show you inside the KJV Bible in Spanish along with KJV Bible in English.


Biblia Bilingue RVR 1960-KJV, Encuadernacion Dura / RVR 1960-KJV Bilingual Bible
http://www.christianbook.com/Christ...9&netp_id=107758&event=EBRN&item_code=WW#curr

Same with other countries with their foreign languages if, they choose KJV.
 
Question:
Would you guys mind if we could ask the mods to split the Bible questions off to a new thread? I think starting from post #194, we have really gotten off the original topic. The posts about the Bible and translations are important but they deserve their own thread.

What do you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top