Accuracy and Precision

I'll take your challenge if you will ask your youth group to explain John 18:28 in the bible you provide for them.

John 18:28 (KJV) Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment : and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

John 18:28 (ASV) They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium : and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.

John 18:28 (BBE) So they took Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the Praetorium . It was early. They themselves did not go into the Praetorium, so that they might not become unclean, but might take the Passover.

John 18:28 (DBY) They lead therefore Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium ; and it was early morn. And *they* entered not into the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but eat the passover.

John 18:28 (MKJV) Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium . And it was early. And they did not go into the praetorium, that they should not be defiled, and that they might eat the Passover.

John 18:28 (MNT) From the house of Caiaphas they took Jesus to the Praetorium , and it was dawn. They themselves would not enter the Praetorium, in order that they might not be ceremonially defiled, but might be able to eat the Passover.

John 18:28 (NKJV) Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium , and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.

John 18:28 (RSV) Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the Praetorium . It was early. They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover.

John 18:28 (WEB) They led Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the Praetorium . It was early, and they themselves didn't enter into the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.

John 18:28 (WNT) So they brought Jesus from Caiaphas's house to the Praetorium . It was the early morning, and they would not enter the Praetorium themselves for fear of defilement, and in order that they might be able to eat the Passover.

John 18:28 (YLT) They led, therefore, Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium , and it was early, and they themselves did not enter into the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the passover;

Is the "average" teenager going to understand "hall of judgment" or "Praetorium" more easily without any instruction? Or, will a simple explanation by the teacher or preacher be enough to correct their inability to understand on their own?

This much used, tired argument can so easily be turned back on the MVs that I'm really surprised that it is still being used.

 

For the same reason that the Ethiopian Eunuch needed a preacher to understand the things he read from the Word of God.

</font>[/QUOTE]Don't get me wrong, I explain it to them everytime we meet. But I'm not available to all of them all the time.
When they are reading late at night, or at lunch, or when they are over at a friend's house, for instance, they need to have a translation that they can understand, without doing the extra research to understand what they read.

Now I'm not against Studying, using a dictionary, concordance, or even them studying Greek. But there are times when I want them to just read the Word to hear God speaking through it to them. At those times, they shouldn't need tools to help them understand writings that God intended to be understood by common man.

Do you see my point. A teen's life is so busy, so full of things that we, as a society, demand they know by the time they are 18. Why add the extra burden on them to learn a language (17th century English) when they shouldn't have too.

IMO kids are growing up too fast.

If they understand the KJV, Praise God!!
If they need another translation to understand God's word, give it to them.

I want my youth group to think for themselves. not rely fully upon me for everything.
Too many preachers are prideful in that regard.

 

No, most I've seen are NKJV or New Century Version.

 

actually, stodgy Baptists can "Amen" lots louder
than Jumpin' up and flayin' both hands
around Baptists -- it is a diaphram motion
thing

I been reading:
THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY,
Can You Trust the Modern Translations?
(Bethany House Publishers, 1995)
by James R. White.
I been waiting a lot for my Jury duty this
week.

 

Really. I hadn't realized that. Had a discussion with someone a couple of years back who insisted the Gideons in the US used nothing but KJV. I guess they were wrong!

(BTW, I grew up in Bemidji. Have relatives who live on the range.)

 

Nope, haven't got the time. I've got two KJB that I alternate, 3 others I've worn out, 5 Bible programs, 1 program with several others, including one Hebrew Bible. Sometimes I compare the AV with YLT or the NKJV, always to conclude the AV the best.

I've read passages in ASV, RSV,NIV,NASV, even in the African version, it had polaroids of O.T. characters and even a black Jesus, wonder how accurate and precise it is? Afterall, it has photographic evidence!

Have I one for any reason? Can't think of a reason to have one, I've already got the Bible!

 

If you were called to post here then I suppose Singleman can claim a call to criticize, as both "calls" would be extra-biblical.

 

Nor does making asinine statements that Jacobean English is a unknown language. Time to get real.

 

Why add the extra burden of trying to figure out which is the right one? We already have the Bible/KJB. Every one of the versions you need a dictionary to get the meaning, but you'd just be better off staying with the KJB.

New words detract from the original, or Olde English. ("e' in Olde intentional). I find in the KJB English the real meaning of the Greek and Hebrew. How do I know that? I study. How will the youth ever know that? Study.

 

That would silence the mv crowd, if they were obedient! </font>[/QUOTE]One little prob-Elizabethan English is more the "unknown tongue" than is modern English. </font>[/QUOTE]Cranston, Are you confessing illiteracy?

 

Ed, I thought that was an mv advocate pouring water out of his head.

 

It doesn't seem to be a burden for anyone I know.

Why? What qualifies you to be the final authority on what Bible version someone else should use?

There is no biblical mandate to only use the KJV. There is no historical case for only accepting the KJV as the Word of God in English. Therefore the only reasons to use the KJV alone are contrived by men.

Not when they accurately communicate the original meaning to the modern reader. On the other hand, words that a reader doesn't understand or words whose meaning has changed over time does detract from the original.

Congratulations. However your experience and subjective reasoning is not sufficient to establish a rule for others.

Or they could just find the "real meaning of the Greek and Hebrew" in a Bible version that uses their language and thus remove one obstacle from their quest to know God's will.

 

Then you are released from your burden, quit posting.

I have noticed your ability to contradict yourself, you're beginning to look rather professional at it.

Divine authority, I have only authority given from above.

No historical case? 400 years has nothing to do with history now? Hmm? I never thought of it like that, and won't either!


"Biblical mandate"? Am I understanding you right? Are you now saying man has written the Bible and has this authority over God to make a mandate?

Is Pslams 12:6,7 still in your "book"?

So do you or don't you believe studying is the rule for gaining knowledge? Have you invented another way?

But then they would have to take your word for it, and I would never recommend anyone do that. Still, a dictionary, an accurate and precise dictionary, is the rule for any language. Or do you suggest you are the "final authority" now?

Do you know Dan Johnston? Your method is identical to his. He thinks he knows it all too.

 

Divine authority, I have only authority given from above.
</font>[/QUOTE]That would be funny, if it wasn't blasphemous.

Please keep posting QS, I appreciate the damage you're doing to KJV-onlyism. It makes our job so much easier.

 

Divine authority, I have only authority given from above.
</font>[/QUOTE]That would be funny, if it wasn't blasphemous.

Please keep posting QS, I appreciate the damage you're doing to KJV-onlyism. It makes our job so much easier. </font>[/QUOTE]O.K. BrianT, since you think Divine authority is "funny, if not blasphemous" what, praytell, is your authority?

Keep posting, you make mv advocates look silly. That doesn't do any "damage", it's the whole agenda to promote inadequate books as the Bible that looks silly.

The evidence is how yall try to tear apart the KJB, and we just keep standing.

 

Thanks for butchering and misrepresenting my quote. I don't think divine authority is funny or blasphemous. I think that you claiming it for yourself, as a defense for KJV-onlyism, is.

So much for reasonable discussion.

 

If you were called to post here then I suppose Singleman can claim a call to criticize, as both "calls" would be extra-biblical. </font>[/QUOTE]Wouldn't bother me if it was.
I just wanted to know, wheather or not.
I can live without knowing.