FEBC and The Chinese Union Version
Dr Jeffrey Khoo wrote: “The Chinese Union Version (CUV) is the “Word of God” for the Chinese people today since it is the best, most faithful, most reliable, and most accurate version among the Chinese versions presently available. Great care ought to be taken not to undermine our Chinese brethren’s confidence in the CUV. Nevertheless, versions or translations are never superior to the inspired and preserved Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scriptures; thus there is a need to consult these original language Scriptures for clarity and fulness of meaning, and to compare Scripture with Scripture.”
This is twisting, turning, bending the rules to cover the inadequacies and forcing the issue by trying to connect to FEBC’s brand of underlying texts. CUV is based on ERV/WH text. Put it another way, translate back CUV to the original language and what will happen now? Recall the missing 8 cardinal words (through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages) in Jude 25, it will show that the TR is not perfect. Which will they place their faith in: CUV or FEBC’s brand of texts?
1:25
愿 荣 耀 ， 威 严 ， 能 力 ， 权 柄 ， 因 我 们 的 主 耶 稣 基 督 ， 归 与 他 ， 从 万 古 以 前 ， 并 现 在 ， 直 到 永 永 远 远 。 阿 们 。
May I ask how many Chinese speaking people will go back to FEBC’s brand of texts to check? Practically - none.
Such rhetoric only undermines the faith of the Chinese people. One cannot try to fit round nut to square hole; it does not work! It was the bible of John Sung and Wang Min Dao who had full faith in it. The Chinese has it since 1890. God has been using WH text (underlying) though overall inferior to TR. (There are areas that WH text is superior to TR). There’s no problem.
"The truth however is that the CUV, like most other translations in other languages, was not based on the same Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek texts used by the 1611 KJV translators. This 1919 publication, which is today’s most widely used Chinese Bible, was translated in 1890 by a panel of missionaries from the Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal, Congregationalist churches and from the China Inland Mission, using the 1885 English Revised Version as its source text supplemented by the original manuscripts for crosschecking." From www.Truth.sg
Dr Jeffrey Khoo wrote: “The Chinese Union Version (CUV) is the “Word of God” for the Chinese people today since it is the best, most faithful, most reliable, and most accurate version among the Chinese versions presently available. Great care ought to be taken not to undermine our Chinese brethren’s confidence in the CUV. Nevertheless, versions or translations are never superior to the inspired and preserved Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scriptures; thus there is a need to consult these original language Scriptures for clarity and fulness of meaning, and to compare Scripture with Scripture.”
This is twisting, turning, bending the rules to cover the inadequacies and forcing the issue by trying to connect to FEBC’s brand of underlying texts. CUV is based on ERV/WH text. Put it another way, translate back CUV to the original language and what will happen now? Recall the missing 8 cardinal words (through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages) in Jude 25, it will show that the TR is not perfect. Which will they place their faith in: CUV or FEBC’s brand of texts?
1:25
愿 荣 耀 ， 威 严 ， 能 力 ， 权 柄 ， 因 我 们 的 主 耶 稣 基 督 ， 归 与 他 ， 从 万 古 以 前 ， 并 现 在 ， 直 到 永 永 远 远 。 阿 们 。
May I ask how many Chinese speaking people will go back to FEBC’s brand of texts to check? Practically - none.
Such rhetoric only undermines the faith of the Chinese people. One cannot try to fit round nut to square hole; it does not work! It was the bible of John Sung and Wang Min Dao who had full faith in it. The Chinese has it since 1890. God has been using WH text (underlying) though overall inferior to TR. (There are areas that WH text is superior to TR). There’s no problem.
"The truth however is that the CUV, like most other translations in other languages, was not based on the same Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek texts used by the 1611 KJV translators. This 1919 publication, which is today’s most widely used Chinese Bible, was translated in 1890 by a panel of missionaries from the Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopal, Congregationalist churches and from the China Inland Mission, using the 1885 English Revised Version as its source text supplemented by the original manuscripts for crosschecking." From www.Truth.sg
Please note that VPPers are English speaking and evangelize the English speaking and do not directly involved, if any, with the non-English speaking. They do not really understand that God’s purpose is to save and build up all man/race/countries whose bibles are not based on KJV/TR. VPPers have to do some gymnastic to cover their short-comings as we have seen above. VPPers have shaken their faith so badly.
Paul Cheong
Amen. Now ada lagi nonsen on "PMV" http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/topic/4618
ReplyDelete