Bob Sanford wanted to create a Bible that would bring order and clarity to the text. Instead, he's waded right into one of the great debates of biblical scholarship.
The Chronological Study Bible will be released this fall in the midst of a Bible-publishing boom in the United States. In an industry that now as much to do with profits as with prophets, Sanford expects his new edition to have wide appeal.
"(Our challenge) is to take the scholarship and make it enjoyable to a readership that enjoys history," said Sanford, who oversees the Bible division for the giant Christian publisher, Thomas Nelson....
Straw Man here's what Dr. Waite, on this site replies to the straw men you 'debate' 1. King James Only As Slander #1 King James Only As Slander #2 2.A common straw man assumes that IF the AV is God's word ,the AV translators were perfect or something. Thus we must also agree with everything they wrote in their Letter to the Reader (preface to the AV). This is simply not true. The Letter to the Reader is not scripture. But when one compares the AV translators' preface to those of modern translators you will find a vastly different attitude. Modern translators view their work as a simple process of translation; the AV translators believed they were translating God's words, and that it was a spiritual matter.The facts of the issue, are the accuracy of the AV work and inaccuracy of the work (and poor choices of manuscripts) of modern translators. AV translators rejected Alexandrian manuscripts. Modern translators,rely almost exclusively on these mss. Based on a minority of texts!
DCJ49 said "We have probably 95% of the original in our Bible versions"
DJC49 wrote: Try this link for your further enlightenment: And now read and try understanding this:
And I find it extremely interesting that an Edomite king [NOT a Roman magistrate] Herod Agrippa I, who was tickled pink to please the Jews by killing James the brother of John, would turn around and hold off doing anything until AFTER some supposed pagan Roman holiday (Easter?). It seems quite contradictory to me that on the one hand, Herod was so willing to please the Jews, then, on the other hand paid homage to a pagan Roman festival IN JERUSALEM AND JUDEA of all places!!! THAT must have gone over like a lead balloon with the Jews! Are we to suppose that Herod was a devote pagan who kept some specious Roman holiday? There's NO evidence of such in Scripture. Are we to suppose that there were MANY in Jerusalem and Judea who celebrated and observed such a Roman pagan "Easter"? The whole notion of such stretches credulity.
You need to go back and read the book of Exodus instead of an article written by unbelieving Jews.
Are you really this ignorant of the Scripture? Its either that, or you are spiritually bankrupt. I hope its just the first and not the second.
And now read and try understanding this: "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover." [Luke 22:1]
And I find it extremely interesting that an Edomite king [NOT a Roman magistrate] Herod Agrippa I, who was tickled pink to please the Jews by killing James the brother of John, would turn around and hold off doing anything until AFTER some supposed pagan Roman holiday (Easter?). It seems quite contradictory to me that on the one hand, Herod was so willing to please the Jews, then, on the other hand paid homage to a pagan Roman festival IN JERUSALEM AND JUDEA of all places!!! THAT must have gone over like a lead balloon with the Jews!
Are we to suppose that Herod was a devote pagan who kept some specious Roman holiday? There's NO evidence of such in Scripture. Are we to suppose that there were MANY in Jerusalem and Judea who celebrated and observed such a Roman pagan "Easter"? The whole notion of such stretches credulity.
Your post of 8/31/08 9:28 AM is a mess! Who can understand it?
But I would appreciate it if you'd stop misquoting me concerning the 95% statement I made. See my post of 8/26/08 1:39 PM for some clarification. _
I have to laugh! You KJVO boys think that some major theological doctrine turns on the difference between 1 Sam 13:1 as found in the ESV:
"Saul was ... years old when he began to reign, and he reigned ... and two years over Israel."
and that which is found in the KJV: "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel," (ORIGINAL MARGINAL NOTE at "one year": "Heb. the son of one year in his reigning.")
Yeah ... right! It's of UTMOST importance that I know how long Saul reigned! My salvation hangs in the balance! And BTW, the KJV rendition is about as awkward a translation as one gets. The "Saul reigned one year" is TOTALLY superfluous. It's a BAD translation showing that the KJV translators didn't know what to make of the verse in the Hebrew.
As for John 1:18 I prefer "only begotten Son" as the translation. The NASB's "only begotten God" translation -- even though it might not be as accurate -- does no violence to any theological doctrine ... unless you have a problem with Jesus Christ's divinity here being reinforced!
Robert wrote: Mr Ford are you trying to tell me that the above translation is infallible ? I think it is a given that the Above Jesus should have been translated Joshua. "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." (Acts 1:4 kjv) Are you telling me the above easter is a infallible translation of what in the original is clearly passover.
YES!!!!! EASTER IS A PAGAN ROMAN HOLIDAY THAT WAS CLEBRATED BY ROMAN HEATHEN. THIS TRANSLATION IS CORRECT!! THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT PASSOVER HAS COME AND GONE, AND "THOSE WERE THE DAYS OF UNLEAVENED BREAD". THE KJV IS THE ONLY BIBLE WHICH gives THIS VERSE CORRECTLY, THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO BE PASSOVER!!!!!
WELL LETS SEE. Isaiah changes to Esais in the NT. Hosea chnages to Osee, Jeremiah changes to Jeremy, I see no problem with the hebrew Joshua changing to the greek rendering Jesus. There is more than one person named Jesus in the Scripture. You have no leg to stand on here.
Your comments on Easter are interesting, may I suggest, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, which has a lot of good articles, quite a few so-so ones, and some real klinkers! This is there one on Easter, Easter, yes, Robert sounds fine with me.
Actually, Daniel, there are doctrine effected by the KJV, "The advocates of KJVO believe that the King James Version is the only God-inspired translation of the Holy Bible. They insist that all modern translations have been modified to the point that they are unreliable or even dangerous for Christians to use as a resource. One writer claims that these "New Age" translations are somehow preparing the way for the rise of Antichrist. I have a long list of problems with KJVO folks. First is my inability to find the damage supposedly being caused by all these other translations. I havenâ€™t found any major Bible version that contradicts well-established Christian theology. ..." from King James Onlyism By the way, Michael, I'm glad you're paying attention!
I looked over Reese Chronological Bible, The, at our church book store yesterday, and I really couldn't find much commentary in this KJV book, considering our Bible isn't arranged like the Jewish one, q.v., How We Got Our Bible, I'll get over my initial hostility to the idea of rearranging books in the Bible.
Robert wrote: By the way the kjv is my fav version,
Hey, I can live with that!
BTW Earlier English translations such as Tyndaleâ€™s NT, the Great Bible, and the Bishopâ€™s Bible also translated pascha as Easter in this verse, showing that the understanding here dealt with something other than the Jewish Passover. Also, the translation of pascha as Passover in Acts 12:4 was known to the kingâ€™s translators since this is the reading of the Geneva Bible.
The word pascha in early Christian writings dealt with the celebration of Easter, and not just the Jewish Passover. Dr. G. W. H. Lampe has stated that pascha came to mean Easter in the early Church. Christians did not keep the Jewish Passover. They kept as holy a day to celebrate the resurrection of Christ near the time of both Passover and the pagan festival celebrating the goddess Ostara. Dr. Lampe lists several rules & observances by Christians in celebration of their pascha/Easter. Dr. Gerhard Kittel notes that pascha came to be called Easter.
The Oxford English Dictionary states that Easter also means, "The Jewish passover" and cites examples dating to 971 A.D.
Martin writes of the 1 Jewish Passover/2Christian Passover/3 NorseOstara "Easter represents a convergence of three traditions"
I read your links, I am not satisfied. "Easter, meta to pascha - after the passover, certainly so it ought to be read, for it is the same word that is always so rendered; and to insinuate the introducing of a gospel-feast, instead of the passover, when we have nothing in the New Testament of such a thing, is to mingle Judaism with our Christianity."(M Henry)
"intending after Easter, or the passover," (J Gill)
"intending after Easter â€” rather, â€śafter the Passoverâ€ť; that is, after the whole festival was over. (The word in our King James Version is an ecclesiastical term of later date, and ought not to have been employed here).(JFB)"
Add clarke and even scofield to the above.
By the way the kjv is my fav version, but it is in no way perfect.
Robert wrote: translators turning in their graves!
that quick response toEaster a good translation "Jesus"correct at Heb.4:8 shows you didn't read them: link 3 answers the Revision question Some are so hung up on "the Greek" they can't read plain English. It should NOT be translated "passover" because the Passover had already passed. The "days of unleavened bread" had already begun (vs. 3), which means the Passover was over (Num. 28:16-18; Exo. 12:13-18). The Passover was always the fourteenth day of the first month, while the days of unleavened bread ran from the fifteenth through the twenty-first. Herod could not have been waiting for the Passover. Besides, why would a Gentile king like Herod be concerned about a Jewish feast day? "Easter" is from the pagan "Ishtar", the goddess that the pagans worshipped--Rome included. Herod wanted to wait until his pagan holiday was over before bringing Peter out.William C. Martin, The Layman's Bible Encyclopedia Easter read it?
Robert says (Acts 1:4 kjv)says Easter? HE sure ain't infallible! & Barnes is infallible?
Easter a good translation "Jesus"correct at Heb.4:8 (note the hypocrisy of 95%trueDJC49 who just told us Jesus is a fine name for Barabbas!)8/28/08 7:20 PM DJC49 he further tells us "I also learned that the name "Jesus" [Joshua] was a very common name in Judea around the first century" 95%trueDCj49 defuses the artificial "Jesus issue" which was nothing more than an attempt by *DJC49* at SA Survey thread arson. Like any good scholarship-Only Brownshirt, he'll launch into hysteria over almost ANYTHING which HE perceives to be an "attack" against his sacrosanct personal choice at the moment in Bible misTRANSLATION, and with anyone who isn't in lockstep with his Klan's scholarship Onlyism. (lest anyone take issue at the wording those are "95%trueDJC49's own terms- 8/29/08 10:14 AM for calm debate) Infallible Bible translated in English is the Authorised Bible DJC49 thinks 5% of any Bible is wrong!
"There never was a more absurd or unhappy translation than this. The original is simply after the Passover (μετὰ τὸ πάσχα meta to pascha. The word â€śEasterâ€ť now denotes the festival observed by many Christian churches in honor of the resurrection of the Saviour. But the original has no reference to that, nor is there the slightest evidence that any such festival was observed at the time when this book was written. The translation is not only unhappy, as it does not convey at all the meaning of the original, but because it may contribute to foster an opinion that such a festival was observed in the time of the apostles. The word â€śEasterâ€ť is of Saxon origin, and is supposed to be derived from â€śEostre,â€ť the goddess of Love, or the Venus of the North, in honor of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors in the month of April (Webster). (Albert Barnes)
Robert wrote: "Which also our fathers that came after brought in with JESUS into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;" (Acts 7-45 kjv)
Mr Ford are you trying to tell me that the above translation is infallible? I think it is a given that the Above Jesus should have been translated Joshua.
"And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." (Acts 12:4 kjv)
Are you telling me the above easter is a infallible translation of what in the original is clearly passover.
And after Mr. Ford dances around those two obvious mistranslations in the KJV -- which should be rendered "Joshua," and "Passover" respectively -- he can then deal with Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV which reads:
"For if JESUS had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."
Clearly, the reference is to JOSHUA and not to Our Lord Jesus.
No, Daniel, the translators of the KJV would NOT agree with you, it is a devilish idea to think that the KJV is infallible:
Dr. William Combs wrote: The translators argue that all previous English translations can rightly be called the Word of God, even though they may contain some â€śimperfections and blemishes.â€ť Just as the Kingâ€™s speech which he utters in Parliament is still the Kingâ€™s speech, though it may be imperfectly translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin; so also in the case of the translation of the Word of God. For translations will never be infallible since they are not like the original manuscripts, which were produced by the apostles and their associates under the influence of inspiration. However, even an imperfect translation like the Septuagint can surely be called the Word of God since it was approved and used by the apostles themselves. But since all translations are imperfect,...
DJC49 wrote: ALL MODERN ENGLISH VERSIONS ... COUNTERFEITS ERROR ... ERROR-FILLED ... BLASPHEMOUS ... devil injecting POISON. Okay, you've stated your case quite clearly -- you've made your charges. Now ... so I can get on with burning ALL my other versions of the Bible except the KJV, please give me the doctrinal ERROR(s) which so fill them. Show the outright BLASPHEMY contained therein. I don't want innuendo, specious inference, or merely variances in translation. I WANT MEAT! I want a verse (or passage) out of one of the modern translations [not a paraphrase] that is so obviously and so seriously WRONG concerning an essential, fundamental Christian doctrine that, if believed, would lead me to damnation. Provide me some proof other than your typical KJVO bombast, and I, too, will become a KJV-Onlyite!
It would be better for you to study it for yourself and ask God to show you... that is if you really want the truth.
5% of ANY bible is a "false bible" &belongs to Satan? If any bible is NOT a "5% false bible,",but 100% true, DJC49 ascribed the work of the Holy Ghost to Satan ['the unpardonable sin',claimed DCJ49 11:59 8/30a) But we all understand your scholarship-ONLY fuzzy logic pontifications. Tell us which 5% to white out of which bibles, & skip the loose "devil's 5%" hype when it comes to "one principal good" English translation.
You have yet to answer- to my 8/30/08 2:21 PM questions to you, using Aristotelian logic (A is NOT null A) or see 8/30/08 4:18 PM "Things that ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT the same."
you think that John 1:18 NKJV's "begotten Son" is the same as NASB "begotten God"?
or(unanswered from 8/26/08 7:09 PM) what think ye of 1Sam. 13:1ESV?
I'd say 1Sam 13:1ESV is so obviously and so seriously WRONG concerning an essential, fundamental Christian doctrine that, if believed, would lead anyone to think that the word of God is LOST.
And the testimony, even from NIV CT advocates of John 1:18 is that God's word must be lost, with coverups like the NIV73 "God the only [Son]" then NIV85 "God the One and Only" [covering the CT heresy of a `begotten God'].