In a perfect world

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by stilllearning, Jun 16, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    In a perfect world, there would be no “King James version controversy” at all, because “the Bible” would be “the Bible”.

    But wicked men, used “updating the Bible”, as an excuse to “change” the Bible!
    ------------------------------
    Updates are great, if that is all they are.........
    “updates” (To make more modern)

    But the entire KJB controversy is centered around, how some use an “update”, to remove verses or passages, from God’s Word.
    ------------------------------
    A good example of what I am talking about, would be an encyclopedia.
    To “update” an encyclopedia, you must take into account, new discoveries, new inventions, etc.

    But, when updating “the Bible”, the only changes that are permitted, are updating words, that have changed in meaning.......
    E.G. “Conversation”, could be changed to “lifestyle”.
    -------------------------------
    The reason things like “new discoveries”, should not be taken into account, when updating “the Bible”, is because of it’s “supernatural quality”.

    The Bible is not like an encyclopedia; It is God’s Holy Word, that He gave to mankind.
    It was “completed”, hundreds of years ago(long before the KJB), and at that point, it became somewhat “untouchable”.

    At a certain point in history(probably around the time of the canonization), the Bible became a “finished product”, that God gave to man.

    From that moment on, all translations into the world’s languages, would be required to be word for word translations(because of verbal inspiration).
    --------------------------------
    With this steadfast rule in mind, no Christian would ever have any problem with what ever updates, would be made to the Bible, because all that would be happening would be replacing archaic words.

    (What a wonderful world that would have been.)

    But.....that was not to be.
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    First of all, where did you get that 'rule' for Bible updates? Do you have Bible grounds for it?

    So, would the KJV be only an 'update' of the Geneva Bible or was it a wicked attempt to change God's words to suit King James?
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    There is your 'word for word' rule again, but you still have not found 'God forbid' hidden in the TR in Romans 6v2?
     
  4. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,171
    Likes Received:
    369
    This is your first attack on the "modern" versions. Please support your accusation that the translators of the modern versions were first of all wicked and second of all used an excuse to "change" the Bible and please explain what their motivation was.
     
  5. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are right, but unfortunately we have people that want to run around promoting the use of only one version from 400 years ago. We have people that keep starting threads that are not meant to be edifying nor discuss, but attack anything other than this one version.

    Also, are you going to have a reply to my response to you yesterday when you falsely accused me of being dishonest?
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1693434&postcount=52
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Dead right, but something happened about 40 years ago to try and convince men that God could not give English speakers in this generation His word in their tongue.
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2

    Are you suggesting that the KJV translators were "wicked men" because they changed the pre-1611 English Bibles? The KJV translators added two verses [Luke 17:36 and Mark 11:26] that are not found in several of the pre-1611 English Bibles and in Luther's German Bible, and they removed three verses found in one Psalm that are found in the 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the Great Bible [also found in those later editions of the Bishops' Bible that had the Book of Psalms from the Great Bible instead of the one in the 1568 Bishops' Bible]. The KJV translators added phrases or clauses not in several of the pre-1611 English Bibles at Mark 15:3c, John 8:6, John 8:9b, John 8:59c, John 19:38c, James 4:6b, 1 John 2:23b, Revelation 18:23a, and Revelation 21:26. Especially in the book of Psalms and in the book of Acts, the KJV translators omitted many phrases and words found in the Great Bible [over 100 words in each book]. The KJV translators also omitted many words and phrases that were found in the Bishops' Bible of which the KJV was offically a revision.

    Are you maintaining that the KJV translators were wicked men because they removed the words "by election" at Acts 14:23 that were found in all the pre-1611 English Bibles [Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops']? English-speaking believers used Acts 14:23 as evidence to support congregational church government. Roman Catholics in the 1582 Rheims New Testament objected to these words "by election." The KJV translators or Archbishop Richard Bancroft removed those words "by election" at Acts 14:23 perhaps to remove this rendering that supported congregational church government or in order to support the Church of England's episcopal church government.
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Before you throw out your serious accusations, perhaps you should do some checking concerning the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. To start with just compare the KJV and the Bishops' Bible of which the KJV was officially a revision. The first rule given the KJV translators stated: "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit." Compare the two of them in the following examples.

    The Bishops’ Bible has the words “in companies” at Genesis 14:15. It has: “shall he bear out“ (Lev. 4:11), “of the altar“ (Num. 18:9), “Ye shall number the people“ (Num. 26:4), “That is to wit“ (Num. 31:43), and “as upon an horse“ (Deut. 32:26) Some other example words or phrases not found in the KJV include the following: “otherwise called“ (Jud. 8:35), “so shall my house be, but not“ (2 Sam. 23:4), “as namely” (1 Kings 6:29), “that is to wit” (1 Kings 9:10), “offence which Solomon hath committed“ (1 Kings 11:39), “with your cry” (1 Kings 18:27), “that came in his way” (1 Kings 20:20), “in the ceremonies“ (2 Kings 17:8), “I beseech thee” (2 Kings 19:16), “O thou king of Assyria“ (2 Kings 19:21), “even so deal with me“ (2 Chron. 2:3), and “shall this building be“ (2 Chron. 2:6). At the end of Job 9:24, it added: “that can shew the contrary.“ It added “to God” at Job 35:14. In the middle of Psalm 139:20, this addition is found: “thou art O God.“ At the end of Isaiah 1:7, it added: “in the time of war.“ After the word “replenish” at Isaiah 2:6, it added “with evils,“ and it added “the wicked ones of” before “the earth” at the end of Isaiah 2:19 and 2:21. In the middle of Isaiah 3:14, this addition is found: “and shall say to them.“ These words are found in a different size type at the end of Isaiah 3:18: “after the fashion of the moon.“ In the middle of Isaiah 8:19, these additional words are found: “then make them this answer.“ At the beginning of Jeremiah 4:22, it added: “Nevertheless, this shall come upon them.“ At Jeremiah 28:9, it has this addition: “if God hath sent them in very deed.“ It added “when ye had gotten the victory” at the end of Jeremiah 50:11. At the end of Jeremiah 50:28, it added “yea, a voice of them that cry against Babylon.“ At Ezekiel 28:14, it added this phrase: “in this dignity.“ The words “their sacrifices” were added at the end of Ezekiel 40:41. At Ezekiel 45:2, the Bishops’ Bible has the following two additions in a different size type: “in length” and “in breadth.” This chapter has another addition [“a portion shall be” (45:7)]. At the beginning of Daniel 7:20, six words were added [“I desired …to know the truth”]. After “Loruhamah” in Hosea 1:6, it added: “that is, not obtaining mercy.“ Likewise, it added after “Loammi” in Hosea 1:9: “that is, not my people.“


    At John 18:13, the Bishops' Bible has the following in its text: ["And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest"], which was made into a marginal note in the 1611 KJV.
    At John 18:22, the Bishops' Bible has the rendering "smote Jesus with a rod." The Bishops’ Bible inserted “the fishers” at Matthew 13:48. At Matthew 26:30, the Bishops’ began as follows: "when they had praised God." After “preparing” at John 19:31, it inserted “of the Sabboth.“ It added "of the synagogue" in italics or a different size type at Matthew 9:18 and 9:23, "of God" at Matthew 26:64, "of the gospel" at Mark 2:2, “from the region which is“ at Mark 3:8, “at his feet“ at Mark 3:11 and Luke 8:47, “And said“ at Mark 10:7, “of God“ at Mark 14:62, “of the city“ at Mark 15:43, “unto them“ at Luke 8:10, “of their sins” at Luke 10:13, “at the doors“ at Luke 14:35, “and no man gave unto him“ at Luke 16:21, “the means“ at John 5:16, “the means“ at John 6:57, “as though he heard them not” at John 8:6, “on high“ at John 8:28, “unto you“ at John 16:15, “any question“ at John 16:30, “unto them“ at Acts 2:41, “unto him“ at Acts 8:37, “one Scripture with another“ at Acts 9:22, “that is“ at Acts 15:22, “that is to say“ at Acts 15:29, “of the Lord“ at Acts 19:9, “that is to say“ at Acts 28:25, “the inheritance given“ at Romans 4:16, “election“ at Romans 9:16, “I mean“ at Romans 9:24, “nations“ at Romans 11:32, “not only before God, but also“ at Romans 12:17, "I did not mean" at 1 Corinthians 5:10, and “the shedding of“ at Hebrews 12:4. At the end of 1 Corinthians 9:25, it added “to obtain” before “an incorruptible” and “crown” after it. At the end of Revelation 9:11, it added “that is to say, a destroyer.“
     
  9. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I also produced an unrefutable example of the KJV text missing a word that is definately in the Greek TR. There are probably hundreds of words that are simply untranslatable (certainly with a 1-to-1 correspondance). But to think that translation can be word-for-word is be completely naive of the process of translation.
     
    #9 franklinmonroe, Jun 16, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 16, 2011
  10. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    114
    stilllearning, I'm not going to say anything except that it would be nice if you would answer these people's replies to you.
     
  11. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    All because God screwed up and let Westcott and Hort be born.

    Right... :rolleyes:
     
  12. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0

    Why should we consider the KJV "better" English translation than say either the Tynsdale or the Geneva 1559 Bible?
    As the KJV pretty much used these 2 Bibles as a large part of their KJV!

    Didn't God have a Bible before 1611?
    Doesn't he have Bibles other then English versions for forign lands?
    Which KJV "inspired?" 1611/1789/1894 or?
    Even Dean Burgeron supported the Revised version 1881, and that becam the 1901 ASV so?

    IF you want to say that the TR or the MT texts better than CT, fine, that KJV better translation, fine

    Its NOT though ONLY one, and the others like NIV/NAV etc are NOT either evil or bad ones!
     
    #12 JesusFan, Jun 16, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 16, 2011
  13. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    There is no need to update the KJV. There are many more translations out there that have nothing to do with the KJV or trying to modernize it.

    Where do you get off saying "wicked men"? Many Bibles in English are different than the KJV. They didn't change the KJV. The world has moved on --so should you.

    Is it such a crime for folks to have a Bible in their own language and time?
     
  14. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. We see it in translating everyday phrases and words from one modern language to another. Many years have passed since I learned French and German at school, so I hope these examples are correct!
    The French expression "ça me fait plaisir" literally (word for word) means: "It me makes pleasure." That strict word for word translation will probably give an English speaker an idea of what the French phrase means, but how much clearer to translate it as, "I like it."

    The German "Danke schön!" translated word for word is "Thank beautiful", but no one translates it into English that way; it just means "Thank you!"
    I am sure the same applies to biblical Hebrew and Greek; there will be idioms and phrases which, if translated word for word into English just do not make sense.
     
  15. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Did none of you even read the OP.....to the end.

    I said.....“long before the KJB”
    --------------------------------------------------
    I thought some of you reading this thread, might question me about why it looks like, I have stopped lifting up the KJB, as God’s Word.

    But you all missed it.
     
  16. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    So I ask the question again - was the KJV an update of the Geneva Bible or a corruption of it?
     
  17. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Sorry I missed that question. It was a update! (As far as I can tell.)
     
  18. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Even though it did much more that just use more modern words? Remember there were only about 40 years between them and English was still changing slowly - why did it need such an update?
     
  19. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Why do you think it needed an update?
     
  20. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I don't - neither did most Baptists in 1611. The Geneva Bible only passed away because the King forbade it to be printed and Baptists were eventually forced to change Bibles. I would have opposed the King's translation in 1611 along with my Baptist brethren.

    And yes, it if had not been forbidden I would be in favour of a New Geneva Bible for the 21st century.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...