Leopold Street wrote:
We must conclude therefore that not all added english words are provided in the Bible in italics.

DavidD1960 wrote:
Okay you win,that's I get for using words like always and never when I post.

John UK wrote:
Not necessarily, David

Leopold Street does not know the manuscript used to translate that particular verse, neither do I, and neither do you. So we are not able to say categorically that the words were added or not.

The meticulous work of the translation process causes me to think that maybe the words were not italicised because they were there in the greek mss used.

That is my honest opinion.

You're right on the money.

Our very liberties, which came at such great cost, are being used by those who know nothing of their true value to bring us into bondage to our enemies.

I have to question any man's sincerity who would approve of this mosque after the events of 9/11. It's a victory, but not for America... It's a travesty! It's an insult!

Combine that with this:

Question Everything wrote:
All translations have errors in them. You can not perfectly translate from one lanugage to another. Idiomatics! Just look at the word "love". Based upon the Hebrew love with 6 plus definitions, the english only uses one definition, thus all versions have issues. Some translations maybe more accurate, with others not being as accurate, but on the otherhand are not incorrect. That is why if you going to preach the word of God, you better get a solid background in Hebrew and Greek so that you can catch the English inadequatcies. In fact when the bible was translated from hebrew to Greek, meaning was also lost.....so much for English translation.

I have no problem with this, except the plowboy can still know more than the pope and his minions, and that by the Bible in his own common tongue...

Besides, there are many, who for the sake of the original languages, chop the Bible in pieces and say the layman cannot understand his Bible without a Master to instruct him. Let's go ahead and burn Tyndale again, shan't we???

C.Max wrote:
Alan

2. If your number crunching is important to you on this, then at the appendix of Strong's you will find the word = "the" - listed over six thousand times under the Strongs # 3588.

"Number Crunching"??? If it takes numbers to defend the truth, then I am not ashamed of numbers. I only began snacking at the plate which you dished up, but your point is well taken and I stand corrected. Thanks! I had forgotten the appendix in Strong's Concordance. I use the "Online Bible" program and have confirmed what you have written.

However, I quess I wasn't, and am still not sure why you brought it up in the first place. It sounded like you were arguing against the KJV. Still a little confused...

C.Max wrote:
Not quite sure where you are coming from??

I guess I am not getting your point either. My only question was regarding your statement below:

"THAT Greek word is normally translated as the definite article - "THE"
NOT as "what""

This doesn't seem to agree with the facts:

Strong's Concordance - AV-which 413, who 79, the things 11, the son 8, misc 32; 543

Could you please restate your reason for seemingly objecting to the word "what" in this verse:

2 Th 2:6 "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time."

It may be that you lost me at the very beginning and I haven't caught up yet, so the fault may be mine...

Jim Lincoln wrote:
I would also point out,

This is a sham! You don't point out anything. In fact, I think your pointer may be broken. All you do is cut and paste, using the obnoxious points of others who agree with you.

C.Max wrote:
THAT Greek word is normally translated as the definite article - "THE"

NOT as "what"

2Th 2:6 "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time."

Looking at the verse itself: in the Greek, the word "withholdeth" is active voice*, which demands a word which defines the subject who/which is performing the action. It seems to me that "the" requires a companion word, such as "the son" or "the wife," etc., which is the way it is used elsewhere in the AV, but "what" does not always require any such word. It is easily defined by the word "withholdeth," or by what it does, i.e. "it withholdeth." I think it was clearly the apostles purpose to be ambiguous, but not to be abstract.

*Active voice:
"The active voice represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, "The boy hit the ball," the boy performs the action. "

How'd you do the Greek? Impressive!

DavidD1960,

Alan H wrote:
"Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." 1 Peter 1:11 KJV

It's really quite simple. The word "it" is a pronoun whose antecedent is the word "Spirit" which is always neuter in gender. Therefore the translators of the AV were correct.

1Pe 1:11 (NAS95) "seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as —He— predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow."

1Pe 1:11 (NIVUS) "trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when —he— predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow."

1Pe 1:11 (NKJV) "searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when —He— testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow."

These are interpretations, rather than translations. In our translation, we "again" get what the Greek really says, not what the translators think the meaning is.

Curious wrote:
Tony Lopez-Cisneros

You made a contribution, without invitation...

"Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." 1 Peter 1:11 KJV

Curious on 8/12/10 8:49 AM wrote:
I can't believe that you can miss the obvious John as you are doing.

Read it again ... what manner of time ***the Spirit of Christ which was in them **** did signify etc.

There is no confusion here between the prophet and the Spirit. There is in fact a plain distinction!!

So what does the **IT** refer to? To the "Spirit of Christ" or to something else? If you say something else, then it is not obvious to me what this other thing is. So please explain.

If the IT does refer to the Spirit, then Peter is already aware of his personality so why use IT at all?

This may all be clear to you, but you are not doing a good job of explaining it to me.

John UK wrote:
Hi Alan
Good to hear from you and see your comments. It is very satisfying to know that the AV1611 says exactly the same as the 1769 apart from the spelling etc. That is informative.

If there was no marginal note concerning 1 Tim 6:10, that means the translators were very sure about the way they had translated it.

Been kind of difficult for me lately. Please pray for me, my friend. Keep up the good fight!

In the original AV1611 the only footnote concerning 1 Timothy 6:10 is in regard to the word "erred," i.e., "erred from the faith." It says, "Or, been seduced." There is nothing concerning the matter of "the root of all evil."

"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10 KJV

Interesting, John, Look what the NKJV does with this phrase. They put "kinds of" in italics:

"For the love of money is a root of all [kinds of] evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10 NKJV

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Ah, Allan H., because the [A]nglican [V]ersion of 1769 (not of 1611) may be right in some verses or at least better, you will also note that the NET Bible is much easier for person of today to read. In other words, I would expect TR supporters to come out in favor of the NKJV over the AV.

Firstly, the NKJV is not a New King James Version. Those who think so are deceived. The translators made between 40 to 60 thousand changes. This show that their goal was not to make a better translation, but to completely replace the old.

Secondly, the translators had to swear an oath stating that they believed that the "original autographs" were inspired. That places them in the position of textual critics; this is why they are so free with their footnotes concerning "EARLIER TEXTS," etc. The translators of the Authorized Version were not textual critics, they were Bible believers.

Thirdly, a couple of years ago I did a verse by verse analysis and comparison of the NKJV and KJV and the NKJV very often changes the entire meaning of verses and constantly uses identical words as the modern versions for no apparent reason.

40,000 changes is too many for me...

Jim Lincoln wrote:
I would suggest that you look at this verse, [URL=http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=1Ti&chapter=6&verse=10]]]1 Timothy 6:10[/URL], and you can compare various bible versions and even more details about the verse.

John UK wrote:
1). As I see it Mike, a Bible should be a good and accurate translation, and the translators should not be seeking to interpret the meaning, thus doing the work of the Bible student for them.

2). For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
1 Timothy 6:10 KJV

3). As you well know, the way this verse is translated is perfectly acceptable, and a good translation. So would be "all kinds of evil". It would be interesting to see if the original AV 1611, which has alternatives in the margin, does indicate this. It wouldn't surprise me, seeing as the translators were aware of what "pas" means. But the main text is what they chose, and that is the reading.

2). John, I have an original AV 1611 (reprint) and other than the spelling it says exactly the same thing as the AV 1769.

[URL=http://www.the-highway.com/articleFeb00.html]]]THE MORAL LAW A RULE OF OBEDIENCE by Samuel Bolton[/URL]

See the entire book at:

[URL=http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Puritans/Samuel-bolton/]]]True Bounds of Christian Freedom by Samuel Bolton[/URL]

Mt 24:37 But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Mt 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

Mt 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

jpw wrote:
Thanks Jessica I appreciated your post.

"It has been noted in a documentary that Osama Bin Laden sends money to support widows every month..."

Please, Jessica! I was very troubled when I first read this sentence and reminded of it again by jpw's reference to that particular post. This sentence does not tell the whole story concerning Bin Laden. He is a cold blooded murderer! I agree with the majority of your post, but to use this sentence is misleading. This man is not the kind of man you want to use as an example of charity to try to prove a point...

If it requires force it's a farce...

cult

—cultic, cultual /kul"chooh euhl/, adj. —cultish, adj.
/kult/, n.

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3. the object of such devotion.

4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5. Sociol. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

7. the members of such a religion or sect.

8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
___________________

ouini from Iowa,

I have to agree with Michael Hranek's observations:

[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=710101114298]]] Why Has God Allowed Islam to Rise[/URL]

But Hey! Why should we worry? "What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" Ro 8:31

1 Co 16:22 (NASB) "If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Maranatha."

This is a pretty serious ommission by the NASB, but it is just a reflection of the faulty Greek Text underlying that translation. This is but one of many ommisions of the name of "Jesus" or the name of "Christ" within the NASB. Which, may I ask, glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ more? Someone may say, that it is easy to tell who the verse is speaking of. Well, that may be true, but the fact remains the either the Greek words for "JESUS CHRIST" have been added to the Greek Text underlying the KJV or those words have been ommitted by those who comprised the Greek text underlying the NASB.

Re 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

Re 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book."