Sid Roth, Branham, Cain, and Reed

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Amanah

UPCI the authority of scripture:

https://youtu.be/LtBYAlS8-gk

Versions DKB mentions as ok to use:
KJV
NKJV
ESV
NASB
CSB
MEV
NIV
NLT

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Versions DKB mentions as ok to use:
KJV
NKJV
ESV
NASB
CSB
MEV
NIV
NLT

Yeah, I have his books about the topic. This is exactly what he says:

“Different translations have different purposes and uses. Many of them can be helpful, but the user needs to understand their origin, philosophy, purpose, strengths, and weaknesses. In general, a more literal translation is needed for serious study and doctrinal accuracy. A good literal translation attempts as much as possible to translate word for word but not so rigidly that it violates normal English usage. The classic literal translation in English is the King James Version (1611), but because of significant changes in word meaning and use over the centuries, readers of the KJV need the assistance of modern dictionaries, word studies, and translations. The New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the English Standard Version are good choices for a literal translation in contemporary English.”

“A paraphrase, on the other hand, is a restatement in different words in an attempt to clarify the meaning of the text. As such, it can serve as an introduction, Bible story book, or minicommentary, but it should not be equated with Scripture.”

“In the middle is the dynamic-equivalent translation, which seeks to translate meaning for meaning or phrase for phrase in order to produce a similar effect on the modern reader as the original text had on the ancient reader. It can communicate the basic biblical message very well for a general reader. The New International Version, for example, is a translation by conservative scholars that seeks to be faithful to the inspired text while providing a more idiomatic, dynamic-equivalent rendition for modern readers.”

“Although no translation is perfect, some are excellent, and by studying and comparing them, we can ascertain the meaning of God’s Word. Translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We can affirm the virtual inspiration of a good translation just as we do for a good copy of the original text: for all practical purposes it is God’s inspired Word to us today. The translated Word of God can lead us to salvation, teach doctrine, reprove, correct, instruct in righteousness, and thoroughly equip us for every good work.”

Excerpt From: David K. Bernard. “Understanding God’s Word.” Apple Books.


I have the Infallible Word of God as well, but not in electronic format. Can't copy paste fragments.


1. He recommends literal translations for personal devotional and study. Do we do anything else with the Bible?
2. He doesn't clarify that dynamic and in between translations can help, but also can mislead.

I disagree with him regarding modern dynamic translations. There is more danger in the approach than benefits. I would rather just look at different literal translations and commentaries to make sense of an obscure text than go to a dynamic equivalence translation.

Nevertheless, his points are in general very good.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I think the Received Text is a product of the Majority Text which is superior to the Alexandrian Text.

If the Septuagint is superior to the Masoretic Text almost no one up until the last few years in America has ever had a "Bible". And relatively speaking almost no American has one today. Also then the Catholic Bible would be the true Bible and ours the false.

The only major leader among Oneness that claims the LXX is superior is Gino Jennings.

You are woefully uneducated on the whole topic. Many such cases.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You are woefully uneducated on the whole topic. Many such cases.

I could certainly learn more but, everything I said was correct.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I could certainly learn more but, everything I said was correct.

I think the Received Text is a product of the Majority Text which is superior to the Alexandrian Text.

Incorrect. The "Received Text" was produced in the early 1500s (16th century). The Majority Text was produced in 1982 (with another version appearing in 1991). It is factually incorrect to assert that a late 20th century text "produced" an early 16th century text.

If the Septuagint is superior to the Masoretic Text almost no one up until the last few years in America has ever had a "Bible".

The implication is that the lack of access to a Bible = proof that Bible is not the "real" Bible. How many people had access to a true and correct Bible throughout over a thousand years of the Middle Ages? Further, the majority of Christians in the first century did not "have a Bible", simply due to the cost of producing Scripture scrolls.

And relatively speaking almost no American has one today.

Anybody with internet access can have a copy of both the Greek old testament and several English translations, for free. Any American who "doesn't have a Bible" has only themselves to blame unless they are homeless and without access to a public library, or are incarcerated or in a nursing home or mental ward or stranded at sea or lost in the wilderness.

Also then the Catholic Bible would be the true Bible and ours the false.

The Catholics are the ones who introduced the idea that the Old Testament ought to be translated from the Hebrew instead of the Greek. Jerome's Latin translation (the Vulgate) intentionally disregarded the Greek in favor of the Hebrew. Further the Catholic church teaches the LATIN text is the divinely inspired and authoritative text, not the Greek. The English Catholic versions are based on the Latin, or in the case of the newer Catholic English Bibles, a mishmash of Nestle-Alan and Westcott-Hort NT and Masoretic, Vulgate, and Qumran OT.

The only major leader among Oneness that claims the LXX is superior is Gino Jennings.


Jennings is only a leader of his own relatively small church group. He is NOT a "major leader" of anything else. Truth is not and never was a popularity contest. You of all people should know that.

[Michael The Disciple]

Incorrect. The "Received Text" was produced in the early 1500s (16th century). The Majority Text was produced in 1982 (with another version appearing in 1991). It is factually incorrect to assert that a late 20th century text "produced" an early 16th century text.

The majority text was the majority text long before it began to be classified as such in 1982.

From The Trinitarian Bible Society.

Some may argue that Erasmus’s first edition of TR “used only a handful of manuscripts which were readily available”, and he “may well have been in a hurry to produce a Greek text to accompany his Latin,” but the manuscripts he used “were a valid representation of the majority of manuscripts available at that time”. Additionally, his was not the last, nor the definitive edition of the TR: he and other scholars carrying on his work accessed more manuscripts and dedicated long hours—and years—to produce the TR editions available today.53

Thats what I meant by the TR was a product of the Majority Texts.

The implication is that the lack of access to a Bible = proof that Bible is not the "real" Bible. How many people had access to a true and correct Bible throughout over a thousand years of the Middle Ages? Further, the majority of Christians in the first century did not "have a Bible", simply due to the cost of producing Scripture scrolls.

So your argument here is whether a Bible was available to everyone through the years. Obviously they were not. My point is that the LXX was pretty much non exist in America till recently.

Anybody with internet access can have a copy of both the Greek old testament and several English translations, for free. Any American who "doesn't have a Bible" has only themselves to blame unless they are homeless and without access to a public library, or are incarcerated or in a nursing home or mental ward or stranded at sea or lost in the wilderness.

Which LXX should one get? Is there a copy on the internet that contains the Isaiah 9:6 truth that we believe? I have never found one online tho you have mentioned it before. We know there were more than one version.

Also the original version had only the first 5 books. Are we supposed to assume thats all that was given to us by God?

The Catholics are the ones who introduced the idea that the Old Testament ought to be translated from the Hebrew instead of the Greek. Jerome's Latin translation (the Vulgate) intentionally disregarded the Greek in favor of the Hebrew. Further the Catholic church teaches the LATIN text is the divinely inspired and authoritative text, not the Greek. The English Catholic versions are based on the Latin, or in the case of the newer Catholic English Bibles, a mishmash of Nestle-Alan and Westcott-Hort NT and Masoretic, Vulgate, and Qumran OT.

https://library.princeton.edu/depart...tml#septuagint

The Septuagint

The Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures made for the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria, ca. 3rd century B.C. Alexandria had a large Jewish population whose primary language was Greek.

A legend contained in the Letter of Aristeas claimed that Ptolemy Philadelphus commissioned a translation to be made into Greek by six men from each of the twelve tribes of Israel, sent by the high priest in Jerusalem. These 72 scholars purportedly came up with identical translations. Scholars generally discount the legend, but the name "Septuagint" -- from the Latin word for seventy "septuaginta" (LXX) -- became the traditional name for this translation.

It was not the only Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures in antiquity, but it was the most influential. It contained, in addition to the translation of the Hebrew scriptures, other books, collectively labeled the "apocrypha", or "hidden books." Most were written originally in Greek.

The Christian Church, at first largely speaking Greek, adopted the Septuagint as its "official" version of the Old Testament. Afterwards it was abandoned by Jews.

The canon of the Hebrew Bible, together with the additions of the Septuagint, comprise the canon of the Old Testament for the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Eastern Church.

Jennings is only a leader of his own relatively small church group. He is NOT a "major leader" of anything else. Truth is not and never was a popularity contest. You of all people should know that.

Well if one takes his stand for the LXX out of the picture it would leave no one among Oneness that I am aware of who promotes it as THE BIBLE.

[Esaias]

The Majority Text, especially as CAPITALIZED (as you did) refers to a specific TEXT, published as such, and which is the basis for the revised editions of the New King James Version as well as the various Orthodox Bible versions published in English in the last several decades.

"The "Majority Text" is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others. There are two published Greek texts which purport to represent the Majority readings -- Hodges & Farstad 1982 and Pierpont & Robinson 1991. The reader may click on the links in the previous sentence to go to brief descriptions of these texts, and a list of all their differences is given here."

--- http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Yeah, I have his books about the topic. This is exactly what he says:

“Different translations have different purposes and uses. Many of them can be helpful, but the user needs to understand their origin, philosophy, purpose, strengths, and weaknesses. In general, a more literal translation is needed for serious study and doctrinal accuracy. A good literal translation attempts as much as possible to translate word for word but not so rigidly that it violates normal English usage. The classic literal translation in English is the King James Version (1611), but because of significant changes in word meaning and use over the centuries, readers of the KJV need the assistance of modern dictionaries, word studies, and translations. The New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the English Standard Version are good choices for a literal translation in contemporary English.”

“A paraphrase, on the other hand, is a restatement in different words in an attempt to clarify the meaning of the text. As such, it can serve as an introduction, Bible story book, or minicommentary, but it should not be equated with Scripture.”

“In the middle is the dynamic-equivalent translation, which seeks to translate meaning for meaning or phrase for phrase in order to produce a similar effect on the modern reader as the original text had on the ancient reader. It can communicate the basic biblical message very well for a general reader. The New International Version, for example, is a translation by conservative scholars that seeks to be faithful to the inspired text while providing a more idiomatic, dynamic-equivalent rendition for modern readers.”

“Although no translation is perfect, some are excellent, and by studying and comparing them, we can ascertain the meaning of God’s Word. Translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We can affirm the virtual inspiration of a good translation just as we do for a good copy of the original text: for all practical purposes it is God’s inspired Word to us today. The translated Word of God can lead us to salvation, teach doctrine, reprove, correct, instruct in righteousness, and thoroughly equip us for every good work.”

Excerpt From: David K. Bernard. “Understanding God’s Word.” Apple Books.


I have the Infallible Word of God as well, but not in electronic format. Can't copy paste fragments.


1. He recommends literal translations for personal devotional and study. Do we do anything else with the Bible?
2. He doesn't clarify that dynamic and in between translations can help, but also can mislead.

I disagree with him regarding modern dynamic translations. There is more danger in the approach than benefits. I would rather just look at different literal translations and commentaries to make sense of an obscure text than go to a dynamic equivalence translation.

Nevertheless, his points are in general very good.

His statements about the King James are typical and to be honest irksome. As if picking up a dictionary to expand your vocabulary while STUDYING the words of our Creator is somehow a negative thing.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I'm not sure you are right. In fact, IIRC, it is the opposite. They began to edit the LXX to debunk the claims of Christ and His followers in the early century. It even makes sense, LXX was the most used translation because of obvious reasons: early Christians didn't speak Hebrew. Also, the LXX we have today is not the same "variant" of the time of the Apostles.

There is a lot of misinformation in the topic, and a lot of skepticism and mistrust not well founded also.

Compare this text from the MT and from the current edition of LXX and tell me which one says more clearly that the Christ is fully human and fully God:

Isaiah 9:6 LXX: For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

Isaiah 9:6 MT: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

If the Jewish rabbis were trying to remove the truths about Christ in the MT, then they have failed miserably, because we see it all over the place in our modern Old Testament.

The Alexandrian LXX reading of Isaiah 9:6 follows the KJV more or less. You are quoting from the Vaticanus LXX if I am not mistaken.

Psalm 22:16 in the Masoretic rabbinical texts reads "like a lion my hands and my feet". The same verse in the LXX reads "they pierced my hands and feet." The KJV follows the Greek here rather than the Hebrew.

Isaiah 7:14 in the Jewish text reads "a young girl" whereas the LXX is very specifically "a virgin". The KJV follows the LXX here as well rather than the Masoretic text.

The apostles definitely quoted the LXX rather than the Masoretic text, as for example Luke 4:18 quoting Isaiah 61:1, Acts 15:16-18 quoting Amos 9:11-12, and so forth.

By the time of Origen, the rabbins had been repeatedly charged by Christians with intentional alterations of the Scriptures in various attempts to obscure prophecies concerning Jesus. The Jewish corruption attempts began with attempting to corrupt the common Jewish and Christian Bible of the day (the Greek). Eventually at the rabbinic Council of Jamnia they rejected as authoritative ALL Greek manuscripts and compiled and assembled what would hundreds of years later become their authoritative Hebrew text (later known as the Masoretic text).

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by coksiw

....The classic literal translation in English is the King James Version (1611), but because of significant changes in word meaning and use over the centuries, readers of the KJV need the assistance of modern dictionaries, word studies, and translations.

Excerpt From: David K. Bernard. “Understanding God’s Word.” Apple Books.
I have the Infallible Word of God as well, but not in electronic format.

Originally Posted by Esaias

His statements about the King James are typical and to be honest irksome. As if picking up a dictionary to expand your vocabulary while STUDYING the words of our Creator is somehow a negative thing.

His statement above is a disaster top to bottom.

Beyond that, like most scholastic modernist textual charlatans, he avoids telling his readers about the massive Bible verse differences between the Reformation Bible and the Westcott-Hort recension.