A little thought

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by wfdfiremedic, Feb 15, 2010.

  1. wfdfiremedic

    wfdfiremedic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, so i was thinking today that if one believes that the KJV is the "only innerant word of God", what seperates that from the JW's that believe the NWT is " the only word of God." For instance, I cannot reproduce another bible that is translated in the exact same manner as the NWT. Nor can we produce another bible that is translated in the exact manner as the KJV. Therefore, is that not a major problem? I see cults as those that believe a single translation as the "word of God." In fact, one needs to utilize a number of translations to prove sound theology.

    God bless,
    Chris
     
  2. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's basically my point of view as well. the manuscripts used to translate the KJV were "lost" soon afterwards, thereby cutting off any means of making a new translations from the exact same sources (I have my own theories as to why these documents "vanished", but that's neither here nor there).

    I have never had a problem with anyone using the KJV, or using it exclusively. That is a personal choice. It is when they decide to start telling others that the KJV is the ONLY word of God (whether in English or not) that I get wound up. To me, that is the same as idolatry; instead of a golden statue they are using a translation of God's word as the object of worship.

    We are to have no other gods before the Lord, nor are we to worship anything but Him. We are not to have or use any graven image or idol. I see this "doctrine" of the KJV as the sole repository of God's word flying in the face of both of these commandments.

    But, of course, maybe my MVs and multiple copies of the KJV are completely wrong...
     
  3. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi wfdfiremedic

    You asked........
    One big thing: The biggest thing.

    The KJV, will always be what it is.
    While every cult bible, can and is changed, as the cults leadership or doctrine changes.

    (Kind of like the MV’s)
     
  4. God's_Servant

    God's_Servant
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Messages:
    81
    Likes Received:
    0
    What doctrines do the MV's change?
     
  5. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello God's_Servant


    This question was already asked.......


    Doctrine is “changed”, little by little(like little foxes), removing a verse here or there.
    (And the publishers of the MV’s answer to noone, for the changes they make:)
    Because most people will keep using them, regardless.

    If I ever buy a KJV, and find a “word” missing or replaced, I return it or stop using it.
    --------------------------------------------------
    Here is almost what I said before.......

    Years ago Gail Riplinger, came out with a book that pointed out all the “doctrines”, that the MV’s were attacking(the Deity of Christ, for one), and she did this by listing all the places(chapter and verse), the modern versions of her time had changed words and removed verses and passages, etc.
    And it was devastating.

    Well the publishers of these Bibles fixed her wagon good:
    You see Gail had assumed, that since these were Bibles, that her book would forever be a testimony of what they were doing.

    But what happened, was that when the following issues of these MV’s came out, the publishers had doctored them up.
    Where “virgin” had been changed to “young maiden” in Isaiah 7:14, now it was changed back to virgin. Etc,
    --------------------------------------------------
    This same thing happed when years ago, someone came out with a Christian film called “the god makers”, about the damnable heresies of the Mormons.
    Listing all the ungodly things found in the book of Mormon.

    And so the Mormons simply edited out the objectionable passages.
    (This is why today, the Mormons will pay almost anything, to get an old book of Mormon back.)
    --------------------------------------------------
    Now to your question:
    Any of us will be hard pressed, to find any Doctrine actually “changed”, in these modern versions, but they showed their true colors, when their early editions came out.

    And even if we can’t find any “changes”: Who wants to place their Spiritual life, in the hands of a Bible, that will change with every wind that comes down the pick.
    --------------------------------------------------
    One Doctrine change, that I can attest to, is found in Acts........

    Acts 15:34
    “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.”

    Most modern versions, either totally remove this verse, or badmouth it to death.
    Now right away, some would ask, “well what’s the harm”?

    Well this verse, is a reminder to me, of the importance of learning to listing to the Lord’s still small voice.
    Here, the Lord spoke to Silas’ heart, having him stay in Antioch, where a few days later Paul would find him, and the two of them would end up in prison together.

    Christians that use MV’s, would miss out completely on this.
     
  6. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    The questions I have for those that view the KJV as inspired and perfect is this. Why then did the original translators add thousands of marginal notes, many often giving an alternate reading? Why when they themselves stated that their work was not perfect and that other English translations were to be considered the word of God do people now elevate it to something the translators themselves specifically didn't intend?
     
  7. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello Steven2006

    You asked......
    I would like to know that too:
    I mean, who said, “That they said that”!

    I have heard that charge before, but noone seems to know where it came from.
     
  8. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    I comes from their words themselves in the "Translators to The Readers" section.

    What about the thousands of marginal notes?
     
  9. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." Source, 18th or 19th paragraph, opening sentence
     
  10. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes thanks, and it goes on to say even more.
     
  11. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    "A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though hee have some warts upon his hand, yea, not onely freakles upon his face, but all skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand?" - Translators To The Readers
     
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Astounding! How could some one that has so much to say on this subject be so utterly underinformed on the basics?
     
  13. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    "But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknowen tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voyce, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shalbe a Barbarian to me. The Apostle excepteth no tongue, not Hebrewe the ancientest, not Greeke the most copious, not Latine the finest. Nature taught a naturall man to confesse, that all of us in those tongues which wee doe not understand, are plainely deafe; wee may turne the deafe eare unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous: so the Romane did the Syrian, and the Jew, (even S. Jerome himselfe calleth the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) so the Emperour of Constantinople calleth the Latine tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storme at it: so the Jewes long before Christ, called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better then barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that alwayes in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readinesse. Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtaine, that we may looke into the most Holy place; that remooveth the cover of the well, that wee may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which meanes the flockes of Laban were watered. Indeede without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacobs well (which was deepe) without a bucket or some thing to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Esau, to whom when a sealed booke was delivered, with this motion, Reade this, I pray thee, hee was faine to make this answere, I cannot, for it is sealed." - Translators To The Readers (Emphases mine)
     
  14. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    I confess it has been years since I have studied all this so I can't find another quote I was looking for. I got out my 1611 and one thing I can say for sure is my eye sight is not what it used to be, The notes to the readers is some tiny printing. But I digress, there is also a point where they say something about not writing with a uniformity of phrasing. In other words they admit that they at times translated the same Greek word differently.
     
  15. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello all

    Well fellas, I found that 22 page document, and lets try putting this paragraph in context........

    1 Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.
    • 2 As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.



    Isn't it saying, what I have been saying all along....
    And I quote....the KJV....”is the Word of God”:
    And regardless of what language God’s Word is translated into, it....”still the King's Speech”

    Give me some help here, if I am wrong.
     
  16. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Meanest translation = poorest translation. Even the meanest translation "containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God."

    The Kings speech analogy would be that the King's speech (in this case God's word) would still be the King's speech/God's word no matter what language it was translated into. Their mention of "not. . .with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly a phrase, nor so expressly for sense" is in reference to varying degrees of understandability or aptitude of the translation.

    This does not imply that the KJV is the only word of God. To do so would be to deny the first statement made in the paragraph. It does, however, show that God's word is still God's word, no matter what translation is made from it.
     
  17. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Not going to argue here, but simply point out a mistruth that comes from refusing to check original sources.

    I have first edition NIV received in 1979. Here is Isaiah 7v14

    'Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign:The virgin will be with child, and will give birth to a son, and will call him Emmanuel.'

    No footnote to the word virgin.

    Even my 1971 Living Bible says - 'A child shall be born to a virgin.'
     
    #17 NaasPreacher (C4K), Feb 16, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2010
  18. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me summarize stilllearning's post:

    "Nothing."
     
  19. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
  20. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    The fact that one is reading and using Riplinger as a source for argument ought to tell us something and it's not good.
     

Share This Page

Loading...