I have an idea. Let’s say we re-write our Constitution…

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by john6:63, Aug 26, 2004.

  1. john6:63

    john6:63
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now what would you guys say if some politicians wanted an amendment to our Constitution by re-writing the Constitution into the slang speech of today. Oh boy, there would be great debate, on all the talk radio shows and TV shows, this debate could very well split our Country.

    All the Conservatives would say DON’T touch it, leave our Constitution alone, b/c they would be suspicious of the LIBERAL’s, who’ll try and slip something in, in a sneaky kinda way. The Conservatives would say, keep it just as it is.

    I feel the same way about the KJV. Why change something that was just fine for hundreds of years. Why another version just so people can “understand” it better, only to revise it and revise it and develop a newer version so people can better “understand” it better than the previous version that was supposedly better to “understand”. Make NO sense to me other than greedy, money hungry publishers out to make a buck and in doing so leading others down a slippery slope.

    If we would revere our Constitution to that level, and I KNOW not one person here would want the Constitution re-written, then why can’t we revere the Word of God at that same level?

    I used to be a KJV preferred and didn’t have a problem w/ other versions, but once I looked at it in light of our Constitution, I’m now a KJV only.
     
  2. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    You do understand the difference between an English work written in English, and a Greek and Hebrew work translated into English, right?
     
  3. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    john6:63, the problem with your post is that they already had a Bible before the KJV. You have already accepted the re-written Bible.
     
  4. EaglewingIS4031

    EaglewingIS4031
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    They have re-written the U.S.Constitution I've seen it in Spanish. Current Spanish not the Spanish of 1789. But the official one is still in English, The English of 1789. Personaly I would have no problem with updating the spelling when I read it in English.
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    They have re-written the U.S.Constitution I've seen it in Spanish. Current Spanish not the Spanish of 1789. But the official one is still in English, The English of 1789.

    And the official Scriptures were written in hebrew, Greek, & Aramaic. Are you saying our ENGLISH Bibles aren't "official"?


    Personaly I would have no problem with updating the spelling when I read it in English.


    Some probs with your analogy:

    First, the Con has a group of AMENDMENTS, for which the original made allowances; God's word does NOT.

    Second, all the makers of the Con are dead, while the maker of Scripture is not only quite alive, but still THE BOSS.

    Third, we do NOT have the ORIGINAL writings of the Scriptures before us, while the original Constitution still exists. Therefore, there's NO DOUBT whether any copy or translation of it is accurate or not.

    BTW, if many translation of the Con were to be directly cross-translated back into English, they'd read differently from the real thing.

    There's simply no Scriptural basis for the KJVO myth.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    We already has a wonderful document before the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation saw us through the Revolution and formation of a government.

    BUT the stinking federalists had to go and "revise" (that was their responsibility) the Articles.

    What did they do? Pitched the whole thing and gave us the Constitution instead. And the US has never been the same since.

    WHY DIDN'T THEY LEAVE IT ALONE?

    (Obvious parallel to the wonderful Geneva Bible that the Pilgrims brought to our shores, since they would not defile themselves with the government's Anglican Version.)
     
  7. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    Not the same, to begin with the autograph of the Constitution still exists.

    HankD
     
  8. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, your view is quite flawed then. The KJV translators were indeed updating scripture to fit the language of the day (note the use of phrases like "God save the King", "God forbid", and "we do you do wit") If you truly insist on leaving scripture in its original language, then you should accept it only in the Hebrew and Greek of the Received Text, and not the updated language of the KJV translators.

    BTW, the Constitution IS rewritable. It's called the amendment process.
     
  9. EaglewingIS4031

    EaglewingIS4031
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not KJVO!
     
  10. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Good thread and good reasoning. I've noticed that John6:63 hasn't replied to any of this. Is he/she a hit and run poster?

    AVL1984
     
  11. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    Why, oh why, didn’t they leave the US Constitution alone and not try “modernizing” it?

    Senators would still be appointed by the state legislatures and not be in a popularity contest among uninformed and less-informed voters...

    The President and Vice President would be of opposing political parties, which then would make the VP’s role as President of the Senate more meaningful and interesting when tie-breaking votes are required...

    When presidents die in office there would be no unelected VP appointed to become the heir apparent....

    Women could stay at home and not worry about voting except in Dr Bob land (the “leave it to the states” policy currently under debate regarding another subject)...

    No one under 21 would be voting, so politicians would not need to cater to the kiddie vote and could actually discuss issues and implementation strategies....

    Presidents could serve as many terms as they wanted (we would now be coming to the end of Clinton’s third term, with every likelihood he would win reelection to a fourth)....

    Congressmen could raise their salaries every few months if desired....

    We could still have legalized slavery and involuntary servitude.....Oops.... :eek:
     
  12. john6:63

    john6:63
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    John6:63 is a he and is lurking around. Unfortunately, John6:63 isn’t an expert in the matter, so he’s taking in and noting the responses. Judging from John6:63’s posting history, he’s not considered a “hit and run poster”, but thanks for your concern.

    So God promised to preserve His word and so when a group gets together, studying the bible, and each has his or her own bible version, confusion between verses can sometimes present themselves, as I’ve witnessed, and I thought God wasn’t the author of confusion.

    Since many MV’s use different texts to translate from, which “text” is thought to be preserved by God? I can’t believe that say the NIV is preserved and the KJV is persevered as well, when a certain verse in the NIV can pervert the deity of Christ. So again, which text?

    My problem is that the KJV has been around for hundreds of years. Why change it? Why did the Geneva bible stop being printed, was there a problem with it? Do both the Geneva and the KJV translate from the same text?

    I love attending a Church where we read from the same bible. We can all recite together a verse and follow along with the Pastor. I attended one Church (Methodist) were no one brought a bible to Church; b/c the verse was printed on the bulletin.
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    I'm still waiting for scriptural support for this referring to one sole translation.

    Uhhh, that's one of the reasons we have Bible studies. To become educated in scripture, clarifying points of confusion. Most typically, scriptural confusion is not the result of miltiple translations, but lack of scriptural understanding.

    Since God is not the author of translations, including the KJV, for one to apply this verse to the translational topic results in the twisting of scripture.

    Oh, so now you're switching geas to the "source text" argument. Yet, if someone pulls out a non-KJV translation that was translated from the same TR as the KJV, I'm sure you'll come uo with some non-scripturally supportable excuse to argue against that translation as well.

    Kindly tell us which verse this is. Also, kindly explain whym when the KJV adds text to the TR, it's not considered perverting scripture.

    The KJV translators simply were looking to update teh Tyndale. Since 1612, the KJV has had three MAJOR revisions in its history, due to evolving language. The fact that it has not been revised in 225 years suggest that it is time for another.

    Interesting that you point that out. Because the KJV was not widely received, and considered by some critics to be of poor quality, King James authorized that anyone using any translation other than the KJV would be subject to imprisonment. The Puritans, being persecuted by the Anglicans for years, saw that as the last straw, and set off to form a colony in the New World. The Pilgrims that set foot on our shore in the 1600's did NOT carry with them the KJV. They carried with them the Geneva.
    Printing the verses in the bulleting is a good thing. It allows the worshipper to make ample notes in the bulleting during the sermon. But this is hardly a supporting arguement for KJVOism.
     
  14. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    John 6:63:So God promised to preserve His word and so when a group gets together, studying the bible, and each has his or her own bible version, confusion between verses can sometimes present themselves, as I?ve witnessed, and I thought God wasn?t the author of confusion.

    No, GOD isn't, but certain people or groups of people are. F'r'instance, the British had a perfectly valid and legit Bible, in the English of their day, the Geneva Bible. But certain Anglican officials, and the Scottish king who took the British throne, didn't like that version...so they used their authority to have a new one made.

    Since many MV?s use different texts to translate from, which ?text? is thought to be preserved by God? I can?t believe that say the NIV is preserved and the KJV is persevered as well, when a certain verse in the NIV can pervert the deity of Christ. So again, which text?

    ALL of'em, till someone can actually PROVE one is "official while the other isn't.

    The Four gospels differ greatly among themselves in their narrations of the same events. Which one is the "official" account? If you say, "All", then you MUST apply the same reasoning to the various ancient mss or you'd be using a DOUBLE STANDARD.

    My problem is that the KJV has been around for hundreds of years. Why change it?

    You should ask that of the officials of Cambridge University since they still hold a copyright on the KJV...and THEIR current version is VASTLY DIFFERENT from the AV 1611, of which I have two replicas.

    Now, the NIV didn't change the KJV...it's a SEPARATE VERSION. But the makers of the various KJV editions DID change it.


    Why did the Geneva bible stop being printed, was there a problem with it?

    To King James, there was a prob. Among the GB's footnotes was one denying the "divine right of kings", that it was OK to resist a tyrant. And the Anglicans didn't like the GB, written by Calvinists(under the auspices of Calvin himself!)being the "standard" bible of England.

    When Archbishop Laud took over the reins of the AC, he banned the printing or sale of any other BV in English within the realm, with permission from King Charles, KJ's son.


    Do both the Geneva and the KJV translate from the same text?

    I THINK so, but I'm not sure. I turn to the more knowledgable folks here for a correct answer.
     
  15. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    Well, John6:63, glad to know who you are. Glad to know you admit you don't know everything on the subject. I don't believe anyone does, totally.
    As far as preservation, I believe God preserved both underlying texts. If he didn't we wouldn't have them today. I find nowhere in the Bible, though that God is going to preserve his word in one single language or version. The multiplicity of texts and variations pretty much lead me to the conclusion that the MV's and the KJV hold all the doctrines and fundamentals in place, and that we can fully trust that we are holding the Word of God in our hands when we use either set.

    AVL1984 [​IMG]
     
  16. KJVBibleThumper

    KJVBibleThumper
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    381
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hate to differ here, but the articles of confederation were a lousy substitute for the real thing and because of them we almost had a Civil War 80 years early.
     
  17. john6:63

    john6:63
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0

    You’re implying that I’m referring to the KJV. Now, you don’t deny that God promised to preserve his Word. So I’m asking, which text. Which text?


    Both are obviously talking about Christ. Of course, BUT…let’s see what the bible says.
    You see the NIV and NASB both perverted Christ’s deity. Confusion.

    Am I correct in that the Geneva bible had a lot of notes reflecting the reformation thought that King James didn’t care for and he desired the bible to recapture the true meaning of scripture as a result of the reformation?

    Furthermore Johnv, I’m not asking questions for an argument. I’m asking, b/c as I stated earlier “I’m not an expert”. So you can start by answering the questions.

    Again, is the Geneva bible and the KJV both uses the same text as a translation?
     
  18. john6:63

    john6:63
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks robycop3 for your answers.

    I believe if the Geneva bible and the KJV come from the same text and the reason the KJV abrogated the Geneva was b/c of the footnotes, then I can see why King James wanted to recapture the true meaning of scripture and do away with the Calvinistic or reformation influences in the notes of the Geneva bible.

    Anyone know if the same text used to translate the KJV used to translate the Wycliffe bible, Tyndale bible, the Matthew bible, the Great bible?
     
  19. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    KJV Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

    NASB But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, {namely,} Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

    The KJV perverts the deity of Christ. Confusion.

    HankD
     
  20. john6:63

    john6:63
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi AVL1984, glad to meet ya.

    The only problem I have with that is that there are tons of discrepancies between the MV’s compared to the KJV.

    Once I can nail down which Text was used in translating the older bibles such as the Wycliffe and Tyndale, Great bible, the Matthew bible and the Geneva bibles, then I can try and decide if it’s the Text that God preserved and if so, which bible should I trust.

    Whish I could elaborate, gotta go. I’ll check-in tomorrow.
     

Share This Page

Loading...