Authority to call one version superior?

Great job, Jim! Not only do you make personal attacks, you quote something out of context to support your own false accusations! You get Ruckman points for that!

What was it Cranston really said, Jim?

Cranston was making the point that, just as folks declare the KJV superior to any other English translation based on criteria they make up in their own minds, he could do likewise based on whatever criteria he chose to daclare one particular version superior to all other English versions. Where did he declare any one version superior based on criteria of his own choice? He didn't. And he made no personal attacks against you, Jim, but you sure made some personal attacks against him! Attaboy, Jim! If you can't support your poisition with truth then make up false accusations and use personal attacks to shift the conversation away from what you cannot support!

Cranston's attack is against the myth of KJVOism as it is preached by many folks. That is a very valid attack since the KJVO myth is based on nothing but error, falsehood, guesswork, opinion, and personal preference.

BTW, how is the family doing now that you are drifting back toward BB?

 

You're using faulty reasoning there, Jim. If your opinion is in fact truth, then the translators of the 1611 KJV should never have used the word "Passover" for the original pascha. Yet there is the word "Passover" in almost every instance where pascha appears in the original language manuscripts. What in the world were those KJV translators thinking of? If we use your criteria, then we must get rid of all English Bible versions including the KJVs since no English words existed when the original autographs were written.

Myth, or mythology if you will, is a very accurate description of the KJVO position. The KJVs are placed in a position of being practically worshipped by some folks. The KJVs are almost gods to some people. And just as the deities of heathen nations were suppposed by those folks to preside over the world or to influence its affairs, the KJVs are placed in a similar position. Those who support the KJVO belief want to place themselves in the position of presiding over God's word in English. They seek to set the KJVs up as being the measures by which all other translations in all other languages are judged.

Just because a word was coined at some point in time doesn't mean it is not a good word to use to describe something. After all, the word "automobile" probably didn't exist in 1828 either, did it? How about the word "car" or the terms "SUV" or "mini-van?" Did any of these words or terms exist in 1828? Using your criteria then we all need to refer to what we drive differently. How about we start calling them all "horseless carriages powered by their own internal combustion engines and carrying their own fuel supplies?" Did all those words exist in 1828, Jim?

 

Hi, Logos!

The only problem with your post is that you refer to some people as "KJV defenders." Since the KJVs are not really under attack then there is nothing to defend. Maybe a more accurate description of these people would be "KJVO defenders," "KJVO supporters" or "KJVO believers."

 

AMEN and AMEN AGAIN!!!

 

By the way, Jim, you really should understand a word before arguing against what it means. You falsely claim the KJVO belief isn't a myth based on an old definition of mythology you probably had to really dig to find. Let's take a look at what the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary says.

The KJVO belief, based on the definitions above, is nothing but myth. It is a somewhat common idea that has been shown to be false repeatedly. It is absolutely imaginary and not real. Not only is it a popular belief among a few people that is probably not true, it is a belief held by some people that is definitely not true. And it has definitely been mythologized because it is absolutely proven to be a false picture of the superiority of the KJVs over any other English Bible translation and even the original language manuscripts.

Now what was it you were saying???

:tonofbricks: :laugh: :sleeping_2:

 

av1611jim:On the contrary! YOU should reject that spirit you have which makes you such a trouble maker.

That spirit is to tell the truth. OF COURSE I don't reject the truth as many proselytes of a certain false doctrine do.

KJVo is no myth pal.

Yes, it IS. It is entriely man-made, with its chief source being a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST'S error-filled book. It is NOT found in ANY velid Bible version, including the KJV. Therefore, it's NOT from God. And since it's not from GOD, but involves His word, there can be only ONE other source.

It has NOTHING to do with preference and EVERYTHING to do with conviction and faith.

Actually, it has everything to do with OPINION & GUESSWORK, believing a man-made fishing story.

BIBLICAL faith is SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE(Hebrews 11:1), & KJVO has neither.

But you would not know about those two things would you?

No, not from a KJVO.

Evidently you have quite inadvertantly answered the OP. It is obvious that you set YOURSELF up as the judge of Scripture and what is 'superior' and what is not. You said it yourself. Case you missed it, here it is again in your OWN words.

"I can declare any modern valid version superior ..."

Everything else you have to say is just so much hot air seeking to stir up strife. You have declared YOURSELF as the "authority" as to what is superior and what is not.

Jim, you're now leaving the world of "rational" & entering into the world of "My Doctrine, Right Or Wrong". What you say in your last 2 paragraphs above is EXACTLY what the disciples of KJVO do...declare the KJV superior without the first quark of SUBSTANCE & EVIDENCE(Hebrews 11:1) to sustain their guess.

Now, have I declared any version superior? What I in effect said is that there's NO authority of man to declare any one version superior. However, it's quite apparent that YOU are declaring the KJV superior. Where's your authority to do that. It's either guesswork or personal preference, nothing more. None of the points of the KJVO doctrine are correct.

I think I will stick with my Bible for authority in my life. In EVERY area of my life.

Me, also...with every valid version I own.

 

av1611jim:By the way Roby;
You really should understand a word before using it. The word, "myth" was not part of the American language as late as 1828. You will not find it in the dictionary of that time. So trying to apply a word which did not exist until recently to something which has existed since its inception is inane.

This is nuts. I betcha you refer to Ellen DeGenerate or "Luke Sissyfag" as HOMOSEXUALS...and THAT word wasn't coined till 1892. And the myth in question didn't arise until 1930. Last time I did any math, 1828 was 102 years before 1930. Your whole premise here is more than just silly...it's a JOKE.

FYI; here is the closest you will come to your mantra.

mythology
MYTHOL'OGY,n. Gr. a fable, and discourse. A system of fables or fabulous opinions and doctrines respecting the deities which heathen nations have supposed to preside over the world or to influence the affairs of it.

How come ya didn't include THIS definition of "mythology"?...4 : a popular belief or assumption that has grown up around someone or something

In the manner of Ray & Fuller, ya only wanted to tell the "good side" of the story, eh? But again, at any rate, your whole premise here is a joke.

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

MYTH:
b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

There are several other meanings given for 'myth', but the above ones apply to KJVO.

KJVo is not myth. Yer busted.

KJVO is an unfounded & false notion, not at all supported by the KJV itself. And it's all imagination. It fits the above definitions of 'myth' perfectly. Therefore, you are fired for making a "false arrest". But cheer up. A few have arisen from the losers' bracket before.

Now, lessee yer authority for 'KJV is superior' or an admishun ya don't got nun.

 

Eliyahu:

While you're trying to be a voice of reason in the midst of another KJVO air raid, I believe we can sit down with any two or three given versions and find points of superiority in each of them over the others. The main criterion, of course, is ACCURACY, but, given the large numbers of Hebrew and Greek words/phrases that have multiple correct meanings in English, we have no actual authority to cull among the versions and declare any one superior to all others in every aspect.

For years, I have driven only Fords because to me they have the best heaters and ACs out there for common, non-luxury vehicles, and are the most comfortable for me. That doesn't mean they're absolutely superior to Chevys; it means Fords are my PERSONAL PREFERENCE for now. If I were looking for a new car & found another brand that fit my criteria better, then that's what I'd buy.

God made different people with differing 'tastes', and so He has caused different BVs to be made, & WE have no authority to declare any one version superior to all others for everyone. God did NOT make any "one-size-fits-all" Bible translation. "Superior" in this case means which one(s) meet someone's personal criteria and tastes.

 

In case of Automobile, I fully agree with you. Even the fact that Ford is more comfortable than any other models or makers' is quite true. But it may lack some fuel efficiency. The most important issue on the cars for the average people is how often the car is out of order and needs repair. In that sense, people make some choices despite some other pros and cons.
But in case of Bible, if we sit down and compare several key versions on the controversial verses, it is not too difficult for us to conclude that one version is absolutely superior to all others and should be treated as a main text for reading in the life.
One of the key factors or the main point in our assessment may be the Underlying Basic Texts. Even though there is no manuscripts at all which coincide with TR exactly or TR doesn't represent Majority Texts but it is based on 1 or 2 manuscripts, I have found that TR has had good reasons for almost all the verses. If we find more than a thousand verses in controversy showing that a certain version is revealing more spiritual meanings, accurate bases, then we can reach a good conclusion. Again, the underlying text is the main issue, thereafter the translation policy is next as we notice the difference between Word-to-Word translation and Thought-to-Thought translation.

I personally believe that the debate and the controversy are not taking off the ground because poster don't admit the importance of those 2 factors first. People can hardly accept one version is superior to all others when they found apparent errors in that so-called superior version. Translation and Interpretation are the area where the Holy Spirit is still actively working. Even though one version contains quite a few errors or flaws, it can still be a version chosen and preserved by God. I am a born again believer who was saved during the suicide attempts, and therefore Jesus Christ is not only my spiritual Savior but also my phsyical Savior. I am chosen by God, but it doesn't mean that I am perfect and sinless. I am still undergoing the process of sanctification. Bible is different from the born again person, because it is for billions of people and it is the work of many grown up, mature believers, mostly by the greatly learned believers. However it can have flaws and mistakes. Nevertheless there is a specific version superior to all others, starting from the choice of basic texts, translation policy, then the spiritual understanding ( I think this is the 3rd factor)

Let me show you some example for the 3rd factor. In many cases KJV are very good at No 1 ( Underlying Text) and 2 ( Word-to-word translation policy), but we can talk about the spiritual understanding between the translators as follows:

Gen 23 :6
KJV : Thou art a mighty prince among us
NIV : you are a mighty prince among us

Both translated Elohim as mighty, and grammartically they are not wrong. Elohim used to be translated as God, Angels, Judges, etc, and in this case it can be mighty as well. So, both are not wrong.
However, my recent study and meditation refuse such translation.
Abraham was a good preacher and purchased the souls by preaching the Words of God as we read Gen 12:5 ( NIV translated this souls as people)

As we can read Gen 24, we can imagine how much faith the servant of Abraham had. He had over 300 "trained" servant who can devote their lives for the war. There are some more verses where we can believe that Abraham was a preacher and soul winner apart from the Jewish tradition about Sarah's Tent which had openings for the 4 directions so that both couples can see the passers by and invite them to the Words of God.
We know Abraham was a very hospitable man as we read Gen 18.

Now going back to Gen 23:6, when we translate the words, the first priority must be given to the main, original meaning. In case of Elohim, it should be given to "God" Then we reach " thou art a prince of God among us" How many of us can hear in our community or from the neighbors that " you are a prince of God or you are a man of God" ? Then you may take 1-2 acres for your burial of your family member?
If any powerful and rich person come to the landlords saying that his wife died, then would the landlord give the land free? Apparently there was a spiritual relationship involved between Hitites and Abraham. At least Hitites recognized that Abraham was a man of God. So, the conclusion is that "thou are a prince of God" is far more accurate. nevertheless Abraham refused it, which shows how he was, again.

JN Darby correctly translated it as "thou are a prince of God among us"

I have noticed there is a lot of understanding about this fact that Abraham was a good preacher among the people, and had a good reputation as a man of God among the then residents of Canaan.

So, the conclusion is that after we admit the factors 1,2, we can discuss about the 3 factor. In addition we must tolerate the problem with the archaic old English.

 

Eliyahu, I must be VERY suspicious of any translation made by someine who started a false doctrine, the "seven church ages" baloney.

 

I disagree with Dispensationalism. But what I like is the way of Word-to-Word principle.
We must notice there are 3-4 different degrees of Dispensationalism, one extreme way which applies such dispensational "Economy" to all interpretation even to Eschatology, another simply recognizing that there is a certain charactoristics for several ages. We cannot apply the OT sacrifices to todays ceremonies as there is a certain distinction between the ages.
That's been what bothered me a lot and I do appreciate your reluctance against it.
But as for the man Darby, we must understand his life, his way of thinking, strictness for NT doctrines, even though we may disagree with his eschatology. Even today no one is perfect in Eschatology and a few may have caught the glimpse of the overall picture of it, IMO.
Darby lived 83 years as a bachelor, translated the entire Bible into English, German, French, and NT only into Italian, commanded Hebrew, Greek, Latin as well, believed that today's church must return to the Early Church shown in the Bible, no human being can improve what God has demonstrated in the bible, Holy Spirit dwelling in our hearts do not work against what He wrote in the Bible.
Darby's translation was not the main motivator for my understanding on Gen 23, but my fellowship and discussion with Messianic Jews confirmed such. We need a deep approach into the spiritual understanding.

 

I'll see your tee hee and raise by :laugh: :laugh: !

Ed

 

:thumbsup: :smilewinkgrin:

Now that is a good question for any "'preferred version' by faith" :BangHead: devotee, even me :thumbsup:with the NKJV, as I think it is relatively close to the Majority text!

Ed

 

I agree that underlying text is the main issue; translation method is a distant second for me. As I have stated here before, I want to know what God's words were, before attempting to determined what they mean.

I think what some call "superior" is really the direct and explict support that the KJV gives historical Christian doctrines and dogma. It has come down to us in such an obviously orthodox manner that I currently distrust much of the TR-exclusive text (where it departs from the MT and CT texts). It may be effective, but if these words are not really God's words, then I would't want to declare it superior.

 

Ed, that is just one of the many differences between the various KJVs. Many of these differences you yourself have pointed out, laying waste to the false claim that all the KJVs are the same. Thanks for standing for truth and standing against error!

 

Ed, I'll see your two laughs and raise by !

 

How do you know? Well, how does an individual know that they're really saved from their sins, right with God, and on the way to Heaven? Indwelling of the Holy Spirit! That's how I know!

 

Same way you know if you follow the true God or not.

 

Pray, pray and pray some more. And when you think you know what God is telling you, pray some more!