I Cor 14:1-33

Someone here stated "Interpretations are the opinions of men, and they do vary and change. Gods words of truth are the scriptures and they DO NOT CHANGE." I wonder if the KJV translators knew that when they chose words that weren't in line with the underlying texts and versions they used to translate for another word that in THEIR OPINION was better???? I just wonder. Seems someone holds a double standard.

AVL1984

 

--------------------------------------------------
I wonder if the KJV translators knew that when they chose words that weren't in line with the underlying texts and versions they used to translate for another word that in THEIR OPINION was better???? I just wonder. Seems someone holds a double standard.
--------------------------------------------------


And this is modern scholarships opinions of what they believe the Greek and Hebrew languages mean falsely claiming the KJB has errors. Our Holy Bible has no errors. No one has yet to prove such a thing, and to claim such a thing would be denying the power and providence of God Almighty concerning his words of truth in a translation. It also denies God's promise to all of us. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. There are many more scriptures I could give.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Page five warning in effect.

Closure no earlier than 0600 CDT today.

 

--------------------------------------------------
No, mj started the thread by taking a scripture passage and wrongly applied it to the KJV vs. MV Bible version issue. The passage is not about that, but is clearly about the gift of tongues given in Acts 2 and its use in the church.
--------------------------------------------------

I think you might want to go back and read the first post of this thread. The initial poster was relating scriptural truth concerning confusion in the churches and what caused confusion, and relating it to todays multversion uses in the churches. We are to prove all things, hold fast to that which is good. There is nothing good about confusion. You say it isn't applicable. I believe it is, and even provided an example. How can you say he wrongly applied it to this issue? It is very relevant and very applicable. Does confusion in the churches only come from speaking in tongues? Are we not to apply scriptural truths to all aspects of our lives, and the church and specifically pertaining to order and peace in the churches? Do you not think that this is not only speaking of overall peace and order, but on an individual basis as well?


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Context, Context, Context. You just won't admit that although of course God does not want confusion in His church, that this passage has nothing to do with versions of the Bible. I really hope you are not teaching the Bible in your church. As you clearly do not know how to rightly divid the Word. People who continually take the Scripture out of context are the most dangerous people around. Almost every cult is started by a leader who has taken a portion of Scripture out of context and built a man-made religion out of it. Almost sounds like KJVOism.

Bro Tony

 

So the Catholic Church were right all of those years when they only used the Vulgate and said the mass in Latin - no confusion anywhere in the world! The Catholics had it right?

 

Are you saying that being KJVO is being a cult?!? I think that is being way drastic!

 

Just drawing an interesting similarity. I would not call a KJVO a cult unless they carried that belief to the extreme as to say that only those who use the KJV are saved.

Bro Tony

 

Okay, because you had me way confused! I think that all the KJVOs on this site agree that using the KJV is not a requirement for salvation, nor will anyone not be saved if they use a different version. Jesus is the only way, and I think that the salvation message is generally presented in all of the new versions (though I have heard that they minimize the blood of Christ).

Becca

 

Becca,

Good to hear from another desert rat, (for those that don't know that is someone who lives in Arizona). As to your above statement that you heard, don't believe everything you hear. That false claim has been made in a hit and run attempt to slander the Word of God in anything that is not the KJV. There is no biblical evidence for this statement and it is an example of a clear attack against the Word of God.

Bro Tony

 

I'm glad to hear from another desert rat too (but I'm not too sure if I'm glad to be called one! )

I'm not trying to go against God's word, I just heard that in some of the other versions, places where 'Christ's blood' is used are deleted, or changed.

 

JesusInFirstPlace, there is only one verse (Col 1:14) where the blood has been "removed" in modern versions when compared to the KJV. This is not because of an effort to minimize Christ's blood (there are dozens and dozens of other verses affirming the critical importance of it), but rather due to manuscript evidence, there was enough evidence in the minds of the translators to warrant the belief that the "blood" was added to this verse some time after Colossians was originally written, and thus it is a textual addition in the KJV and other TR-based Bibles. By removing it, the intent was not to minimize Christ's blood, but to be more faithful and accurate to what was most likely originally written in this verse. That's all.

 

Context, Context, Context. You just won't admit that although of course God does not want confusion in His church, that this passage has nothing to do with versions of the Bible. I really hope you are not teaching the Bible in your church. As you clearly do not know how to rightly divid the Word. People who continually take the Scripture out of context are the most dangerous people around. Almost every cult is started by a leader who has taken a portion of Scripture out of context and built a man-made religion out of it. Almost sounds like KJVOism.

Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]Bro Tony...this is a good example of "round and round and round we go, where it stops, nobody knows". When one can't prove their point they start to answer questions with questions. Typical KJVO tactic to try and turn the tables. Don't let them do it. The scripture posted at the beginning of this thread has been misapplied to allegedly support a KJVO position. That is why I posted the same portion of scripture from the NIV. I notice not a one of the KJVO's tried to dispute it or point out the error in it. Circular reasoning is their best friend.

AVL1984

 

Sorry, but again you post no proof of your claims of the KJV not having any errors. Which version is the perfect version? I've asked it many times, and you've never been able to answer. You have a double standard, and that is clear. Abundant evidence has been provided as to the discrepancies, yet you blindly follow the blind. If we had every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God, the world would not be able to contain the whole of them. The KJV translators used words that didn't always match up to the received texts, and this is fact that has been shown over and over and over...yet, KJVO's refuse to accept that fact, but will still try and apply false notions to the MV's. Double standards, and that is all there is to it.

The verses at the beginning of this thread have NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with proving the KJVO stance.

Where was the Bible in 1610? What version of the KJV is perfect? Which line of the version, the Cambridge or Oxford? These questions have not been answered. It shows a fundamental lack of knowledge, character and honesty on the part of the KJVO crowd.

AVL1984

 

LOL...C4K...don't confuse these people now...they're already confused enough.

AVL1984

 

So, I guess I made it just under the wire, Brother!

AVL1984

 

Oh oh, we're on page 6.

From the NASB

1 Corinthians 14


Prophecy a Superior Gift

1 (1) Pursue love, yet (2) desire earnestly (3) spiritual gifts, but especially that you may (4) prophesy.
2 For one who (5) speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks (6) mysteries.
3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for (7) edification and (8) exhortation and consolation.
4 One who (9) speaks in a tongue (10) edifies himself; but one who (11) prophesies (12) edifies the church.
5 Now I wish that you all (13) spoke in tongues, but (14) even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who (15) speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive (16) edifying.
6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of (17) revelation or of (18) knowledge or of (19) prophecy or of (20) teaching?
7 Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp?
8 For if (21) the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?
9 So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be (22) speaking into the air.
10 There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning.
11 If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a (23) barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.
12 So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the (24) edification of the church.
13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
15 (25) What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will (26) sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.
16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say (27) the "Amen" at your (28) giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?
17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not (29) edified.
18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all;
19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.


Instruction for the Church

20 (30) Brethren, (31) do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil (32) be infants, but in your thinking be mature.
21 In (33) the Law it is written, "(34) BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord.
22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but (35) prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.
23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that (36) you are mad?
24 But if all (37) prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is (38) convicted by all, he is called to account by all;
25 (39) the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will (40) fall on his face and worship God, (41) declaring that God is certainly among you.
26 (42) What is the outcome then, (43) brethren? When you assemble, (44) each one has a (45) psalm, has a (46) teaching, has a (47) revelation, has a (48) tongue, has an (49) interpretation. Let (50) all things be done for edification.
27 If anyone speaks in a (51) tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must (52) interpret;
28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
29 Let two or three (53) prophets speak, and let the others (54) pass judgment.
30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.
31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;
32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets;
33 for God is not a God of (55) confusion but of peace, as in (56) all the churches of the (57) saints.


Show cross-references

1 Cor 16:14
1 Cor 12:31; 14:39
1 Cor 12:1
1 Cor 13:2
Mark 16:17; 1 Cor 12:10, 28, 30; 13:1; 14:18ff
1 Cor 13:2
Rom 14:19; 1 Cor 14:5, 12, 17, 26
Acts 4:36
Mark 16:17; 1 Cor 12:10, 28, 30; 13:1; 14:18ff, 26f
Rom 14:19; 1 Cor 14:5, 12, 17, 26
1 Cor 13:2
Rom 14:19; 1 Cor 14:5, 12, 17, 26
Mark 16:17; 1 Cor 12:10, 28, 30; 13:1; 14:18ff, 26f
Num 11:29
Mark 16:17; 1 Cor 12:10, 28, 30; 13:1; 14:18ff, 26f
Rom 14:19; 1 Cor 14:4, 12, 17, 26
1 Cor 14:26; Eph 1:17
1 Cor 12:8
1 Cor 13:2
Acts 2:42; Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 14:26
Num 10:9; Jer 4:19; Ezek 33:3-6; Joel 2:1
1 Cor 9:26
Acts 28:2
Rom 14:19; 1 Cor 14:4, 5, 17, 26
Acts 21:22; 1 Cor 14:26
Eph 5:19; Col 3:16
Deut 27:15-26; 1 Chr 16:36; Neh 5:13; 8:6; Ps 106:48; Jer 11:5; 28:6; Rev 5:14; 7:12
Matt 15:36
Rom 14:19; 1 Cor 14:4, 5, 12, 26
Rom 1:13
Eph 4:14; Heb 5:12f
Ps 131:2; Matt 18:3; Rom 16:19; 1 Pet 2:2
John 10:34; 1 Cor 14:34
Is 28:11f
1 Cor 14:1
Acts 2:13
1 Cor 14:1
John 16:8
John 4:19
Luke 17:16
Is 45:14; Dan 2:47; Zech 8:23; Acts 4:13
1 Cor 14:15
Rom 1:13
1 Cor 12:8-10
Eph 5:19
1 Cor 14:6
1 Cor 14:6
1 Cor 14:2
1 Cor 12:10; 14:5, 13, 27f
Rom 14:19
1 Cor 14:2
1 Cor 12:10; 14:5, 13, 26ff
1 Cor 13:2; 14:32, 37
1 Cor 12:10
1 Cor 14:40
1 Cor 4:17; 7:17
Acts 9:13
© Copyright 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

Previous chapter | This chapter | Next chapter

 

Sorry but I’m going to repeat the questions since things have drifted so far from your original post. Also I will respond in parts trying to beat the shutdown of this donnybrook.

RE 1 Corinthians 14:1-33

Definite problem here, so the answer depends somewhat upon the italicised word unknown in the KJV text. The KJV translators added these italicised words which were not in the original language texts to lend clarity to the meaning of the original text message. In other words and in this case they added this word unknown as their own interpretation because it perhaps alters the meaning of the original language text if Paul did not mean unknown.

Assuming that he did then yes, as 17th century English progressively moves into the real of the unknown for the common (koine) man, confusion will abound and we will need Bible versions of modernized English.

HankD

 

Continuation...

RE 1 Corinthians 14:1-33

Yes to use a translation for the common man aimed at only those cloistered in an environment of “churchianity” would be improper. The Scripture should be refreshed for each generation of the language of the hearer from the original language texts in which God has overseen as the place of preservation, all the jots and tittles. “every Word of God ” means just that, in the language of the common man in the language of life as originally given.

Yes.

Indeed, people coming into the Church will get confused at the statement (for instance) “refresh my bowels in the Lord”.

Yes, the “thees” and “thous” and the “anons” and “parbars”, syntax and grammar of 17th century English in so many places in the KJV, it does indeed smack of an unknown tongue in those places, increasingly as the years go by. We understand it but those coming into the Church are often confused by this.

See my answer to number 5.

The NKJV here would be the solution to the problem of the archaisms of the KJV.

No, modern versions minimize the confusion.

For instance

KJV 1 Thessalonians 4:14
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

NKJV 1 Thessalonians 4:14
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.

HankD

 

Thanks for the last minute posts folks.

By my figuring it is now 1000 CDT.