Posted on 06/25/2017 7:13:19 PM PDT by NRx
But all translations are just an opinion of what the Greek and Hebrew say so it is rather meaningless.
They call them translations but are they? or are they just to reinforce their preexisting views?
I did not. I do not know the history of every protestant denomination. I had heard of Methodists and Episcopalian, but not the two as one.
Sorry -- I should have deduced from your screenname.
No big deal and no apologies necessary.
Check the margins.
the readings from newer MSS (i.e. KJV texts) are in the margins ...
Col 2:9 in the NASB ...
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form
Clearest affirmation of the deity of Christ in ANY translation ...
Let's stop the nonsense of a systematic attack on the deity of Christ with the modern translations.
KJV is an excellent translation because it is a LITERAL translation ...
If you want the best possible ... translate it yourself from the Greek.
What does Luke 4:4 say in the NASB?
I've compared the King James Bible with the Challoner Douay-Rheims and I just don't know what you guys are on about, the Challoner Douay-Rheims reads practically word for word with the KJV that largely inspired it, since the previous Douay-Rheims was a total dud and practically unreadable. Bishop Challoner admitted as much.
My son loves the Douay Rheims. Just remember that it has more books than the KJV.
It is complete.
There you go again. It does not have more books than the KJV. The uninspired Apocrypha were isolated from the Inspired Word of God but deemed good for edification, however they most certainly were included.
Then again, I’ve seen you post numerous times an apparent belief that Martin Luther somehow had a hand in the King James Bible, so it appears that there’s a certain amount of disinterest in furthering the truth of the matter, here.
However, please check out this link for the truth:
You specifically stated that the KJV did not have all the books, when in fact the Challoner Douay-Rheims that you hold in such high regard used it for the vast majority of it’s translation including Apocrypha.
Now, what was it you were saying again?
Did you read the link I posted above?
I’m not going to argue anymore about this. Bye.
Thank you.
Don't have my NASB in front of me ... but my Holman (which is very close to NASB) says:
But Jesus answered him, 'It is written: Man must not live on bread alone.'
And in the margin the following note:
Other mss add but on every word of God.
The other mss (manuscripts) the translator is talking about would refer to the Greek mss that underlie the KJV.
That has been my point all along. Modern translations relegate variant readings to the margin. And if you would read the preface to the original 1611 version you would see the translators recommend multiple translations when studying the scriptures ... because when you lock yourself into one version (for study) you can possibly arrive at the wrong sense of a particular passage.
The best possible scenario is to take the time to learn the NT Greek language ... then you can translate it yourself and interact with all the versions in print.
...ping.....
Why would Jesus say “Man must not live on bread alone,” and just leave that hanging out there?
ESV and NASV are two such versions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.