1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

I need two willing people

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Gina B, Sep 2, 2009.

  1. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe I cited versions both older and newer than which undefined "KJV" you are supporting, here.

    (Why is it that those who are proclaiming what you seem to, cannot or will not define "which" particular KJV they are supporting?? It's not that difficult a question, I should not think. And the question should be very clear-cut as to I John 5:12, I'll add, without the song and (avoi)dance that seems to accompany this question, every time that C4K, EdSutton, or some other brings it up.)

    Anyway, at least where I'm concerned, this does not necessarily apply, as to my being "for the Newer versions." In fact, one can look over my posts in the archive to find that I have two particular preferences, one is a genuine KJV 1967 Edition and the other being a genuine NKJV 1982 Edition.

    I am just not willing to make any claims as to any "ONLY one version" which neither the Bible, in any legitimate translation of which I'm aware; nor the translators of that Bible version were willing to make. I challenge anyone to find where any of these translators thought they had said the final word on this.

    Ergo, when an earlier (or later) translation of the (English) Bible appears more accurate than does another, IMO, I go with that version at the point in question, over <6 1/4 Centuries, from the WYC (1382) thru the TMB, ISV, WEB, and counting.

    Ed
     
    #41 EdSutton, Sep 4, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2009
  2. tenderhearted

    tenderhearted New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't study the history of bibles, I dont study greek and hebrew, I study my bible. I dont worry about what the ORIGINAL GREEK or HEBREW says, as I am NOT either of those, I am English. the KJV is perfect, and I dont know why the verses you posted are a problem.
     
  3. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    I'm sorry to have to break the news to you but the Bible was written by God in Greek and Hebrew and the KJV is not perfect. The translators themselves acknowledged that.
     
  4. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    You do realize that translating "Lucifer" in Isaiah is from the Latin - not the Hebrew, right? That the KJV translators followed the Roman Bible's translation, right?

    Additionally, do you know that the true 1611 KJB has "or Day Starre" in the margin for Isaiah 14:12? It's true.

    [​IMG]


    In the notes to the reader, they explained their use of alternate readings in the margins

    If you'd like to educate yourself on the King James translation, it would be good to start with the translators themselves. You can see a copy of the translators' "The Translator's Notes to the Readers" here.

    Finally, I leave you with the translator's own words in why there needs to be a translation in the "vulgar" or common tongue (which 1600s English is not for today):

     
  5. tenderhearted

    tenderhearted New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it was a mistake to join in on this thread, forgive me.
     
  6. queenbee

    queenbee Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    0
    Debate can be a healthy thing, but it's so sad when we spend so much time arguing about you spell tomahto and I spell tomatoe that we miss the point - God 'speaks' to us in a variety of ways. We all need to stop boxing our Heavenly Father in. If you find your Father comforts and helps you understand via the KJV - good for you! I however, love my recently purchased NLV - yeah, I know, flail away at it those of you who hate the MV's - but the truth of the matter is after years of KJV and NASB and RSV and LV and NIV, I've finally landed with the translation that speaks to my heart. I really don't care whether your use your tomahto or I use my tomatoe, I think our God is big enough, smart enough, tender enough and wise enough to get his ideas across to us no matter the language spoken.

    P.S. There is absolutely nothing, nothing, more poetic and beautiful than the 23rd Psalm in the KVJ version and when you are dealing with a life-threatening illness like Ed & I, and some of the others here on BB, it gives a whole new meaning to comfort food for the soul!
     
  7. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would you think it was a mistake to join on this thread?

    The mistake, if there is such a thing here, is assuming something that is not taught by the Scripture, nor declared by the translators to be true (primarily that there is "a one version" superiority, somehow), and positing that the Scripture does, teach this, and being offended when someone happens to question it.

    For example #1, you are the one who introduced "Day-Star" or "Morning Star" into the thread re. Isa. 14:12 (post#12) and claimed "I am sticking with KJB. " (as opposed to agreeing with the NIV rendering, here), yet now take offense when annsni (post #44) shows that the KJV translators even offer this, as well, as well as the reason(s) for the side-notes in the KJV. It seems that the KJV is arguing against what you are claiming, here.

    For example #2, when shown clearly that there is a major difference in wording of I Jn. 5:12 between the KJ-1611 and KJ-1769 editions, you seem to want to pretend this does not exist. (C4K posts #25, 27, 30 & 35; EdSutton posts # 39 7 41).

    For example #3, you have incorrectly 'lumped' me in ("Lump" is a bad word to hear for me, these days!) with some undefined group which advocates something I do not, by any stretch. Incidentally, since you, me, and queenbee have now had at least some close contact with the ravages of cancer, I can fully appreciate what queenbee is saying about Psalm. 23, in the KJV, MCB, NIV, and the other ten or so versions in which I have read this in, for that matter, thus getting at least a dozen sources of comfort.

    Granted, I memorized this Psalm over 40 years ago from a KJV (that was something less than fully genuine, FTR), but it still speaks to me, just the same, in these other versions, as well.

    Incidentally, have you any copy of "the genuine article" you are claiming to support? FTR, if your KJV is not an Oxford, Cambridge, or printed under their auspices, it does not happen to be "genuine" regardless of how often one may claim this, or how strongly one may believe this.

    As I noted previously, I happen to have, use and support a "genuine" KJV along with a genuine NKJV. And yes, I am fully aware that the KJV is an Anglican version. And since the NKJV happens to be the most "Baptist" of all major versions, I would think that you, yourself, as a Baptist, as am I, could support it, as well.

    I do not know anything about Hebrew or Aramaic either (and I make no claim to being any sort of scholar, although I did learn a wee bit of Koine Greek), so I depend on those rascally Anglicans and onery Baptists to have put the Word of God into a language this old plowboy (Yes, I'm a farmer.) can understand.

    I think they all did an outstanding job, frankly. :thumbs:

    I am just not willing to go much beyond that, as they did not make any such claims.

    FTR, there is nothing to forgive you for, except that I believe that you, as well as I or any other, really do need to be a Berean, as opposed to a Thessalonian in that
    Still a good admonition for all of us, even after 4 Centuries? I believe so, just as it is today.
    Oops! Gotta' make that 6+ Centuries!
    Ed
     
  8. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Studying the history of Bibles may prevent you from posting things you will later regret.

    No, you're an American.

    Based on what -- your opinion? Which, out of many KJV editions is perfect?
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80

    Nope, I love my KJV and use it regularly
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not actually! You might discover why KJVO is untrue. You could start with the fact that it's MAN-MADE & not found in Scripture at all, not even in the KJV itself, by the slightest implication.
     
  11. TC

    TC Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Apparently, you do not understand context because you came here spouting the same old KJVO myth that the NIV teaches that Satan and Jesus are the same person.

    The LORD speaks to me from the Bible I read. Nevertheless, that did not stop you from speaking bad about my Bible.

    You say you do not go by what people say yet you believe only the people that say that the NIV cannot be trusted.

    And yet you came hear arguing that your Bible is better than mine. I am thankful for the many good English translations of the Bible that God has provided us and I support the efforts of those that labor to translate the Bible into a language that does not have one.

    God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy 30:
    11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

    God made the word very easy for them to understand and obey. God has not changed and He provides us with His word in the language we speak today. I do not believe that God requires us to learn 17th century English in order to read His word.

    If you choose to only use the KJV then that is just fine. However, have you ever thought that God wants you to grow and expand you comfort zone? Have you ever read the Geneva, Bishops, or Tyndale's New Testament?
     
  12. tenderhearted

    tenderhearted New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    If there is no bible that is accurate then we are left with untruth, even if it is a small percent.

    We all know that a little inaccuracy led to the fall of MAN.

    I don't like to argue about stuff, really. To argue about what version is true and so on, it is a terrible distraction from studying the word of God.

    I do not take any comfort in reading other versions of the bible, the KJV has been my guide and I have grown so much in the LORD because of that book.

    I believe wholeheartedly that I hold in my hands the perfect word of God, I do not want to settle for anything less than that.
     
  13. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Can I ask you a couple of questions?

    What do you do with the added words to the KJV? They're the ones in italics and were not given by God in the original languages? Were they inspired later on?

    What about where there are errors in the KJV? Because there are some. Does that still mean it's "perfect"?
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    In post #52 it says: // I believe wholeheartedly that I hold in my hands the perfect word of God, I do not want to settle for anything less than that. //

    I will never settle for THAT LITTLE :-(

    The Word of God says:

    1. 2Co 13:1 a (KJV1611 Edition):
      This is the third time I am comming to you:
    2. in the mouth of two or three witnesses shal euery word be established.
    an again a second Witness says:





    • 2Co 13:1 (Geneva Bible):
    • Lo this is the thirde time that I come vnto you.
    • In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall euery worde stand

    and yet a third Witness says:

    2 Corinthians 13:1 (NIV, 1976)
    This will be my third visit to you.
    "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."

    I.E. it is obvious that both
    1. the Word of God
    2. the word of persons
    shall be both:
    11. establilshed
    12. and continue to stand on the basis
    of the witness/testimony of 2 or 3.

    My question is: How is using the KJV only showing more than one witness?





     
    #54 Ed Edwards, Sep 8, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 8, 2009
  15. SBCPreacher

    SBCPreacher Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Doesn't that limit God?
     
  16. SBCPreacher

    SBCPreacher Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Mormons say that same about the Book of Mormon. Does that mean that they've been right all along?
     
  17. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is not perfect. "Easter" in Acts 12:4, "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10, and the omission of the phrase "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25 are three KJV goofs that have been discussed ad nauseam here. Insteada discussing them again, I refer you to the archives of this forum.

    I believe that any time we hold a valid version of God's word in our hands, we are holding what GOD has made available for us. Betcha cannot prove differently!
     
  18. TC

    TC Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The KJV did not just fall out of the sky. It is a translation made by men. It is a revision of earlier English translations as well as a translation of the original language manuscripts (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) - you know, the languages God inspired the originals in. The KJV you hold is quite different from the first edition that came out in 1611. It was updated several times over the years by various editors. Some editors are known and some rename nameless. How do you know every editor (known or unknown) made the right choice every time?

    You say that you don't want to argue but you started here by arguing that your Bible was better than mine. When you make such comments, be prepared to be challenged and ready to defend them.

    You say that you take no comfort in reading other Versions. I think you are missing out on what God has provides us English speakers. The Bishop's, Geneva, and William Tyndale NT are older than the KJV and uses the same textual base as the KJV translation. You can download the Bishop's, Geneva, and the 1611 KJV for free at http://www.e-sword.net/index.html
     
    #58 TC, Sep 9, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 9, 2009
  19. queenbee

    queenbee Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I appreciate all of your comments, I truly do. Yet I am so uncomfortable with other versions, and I dont want to go against what the LORD has provided for me."

    Then don't - but don't make blanket statements that KJV is the only language that God speaks and that the rest of us heathens are burning and going to hell becuz we don't learn, speak and study KJV only - sorry, you may not have actually said the words, but many KJVO's imply that.

    By the way, it's healthy to read several alternate versions in addition to your preferred version when doing bible study, to add to your understanding and grow in knowledge and wisdom of God, my friend. Lots of folks here on BB do just that and I'm pretty sure most major biblical scholars and authors do that as well. I can't for the life of me believe that Billy Graham confines himself solely to KJV. I'll bet my last dollar he's read and studied plenty of other versions as well in his lifetime.
     
  20. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Even the AV translators themselves wrote that "variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures." They, like us, knew that many, MANY Koine Greek, Hebrew, & Aramaic words/phrases/expressions have multiple correct English meanings, and so didn't want anyone to believe THEIR renderings were the end-all, be-all definitions of such words.
     
Loading...