'Inappropriate translations'- an answer is requested...

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Mexdeaf, Nov 22, 2007.

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

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    From a previous thread:

    Originally Posted by Keith M-

    The FACT of the matter is that many English Bible translations accurately convey to us the plan of salvation and what we must do to be saved.

    To which Askjo replied-

    If appropriate translation, yes. If inappropriate translation, no.

    Inquiring minds would love to have an answer to the question- what would you consider an 'inappropriate translation' and how does it NOT accurately convey the plan of salvation?
     
  2. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bumped to try to garner a response from Askjo.
     
  3. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tick, tock, tick, tock...
     
  4. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,639
    Likes Received:
    15
    A Sunrise Kibbitz

    Praise the Lord-- He is faithful--even when we are not.

    Do a word phrase study on: two streams of Bible.

    It makes good sense. There are two streams or sources of the English Bible; one is seriously corrupted as to origin, the other is not. When we say inappropriate, do we really mean corrupted?

    What's in your wallet?

    Choose wisely(another subject: can depraved man choose wisely of himself?)

    Anyone want to chase the total depravity rabbit this morning?

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
    #4 Bro. James, Nov 28, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 28, 2007
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Howdya know which is corrupted and which isn't?
     
  6. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did... and I couldn't find that phrase in any of my KJV's, not even in my 1611 reprint.

    Nice try, though. Askjo made the statement and all I am looking for is proof that the supposedly 'inappropriate translations' do not 'accurately convey to us the plan of salvation and what we must do to be saved'. Those are strong words and should be proven true or exposed as a lie.
     
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Is there really valid proof that there are two completely separate streams or sources of the English Bibles with absolutely no connections or with no influence of one stream on the other?

    Are you aware of the fact that some of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision have readings or renderings that are supposedly from the bad or corrupt stream of Bibles? Are you aware of the fact that even the KJV itself took some renderings from translations [the Latin Vulgate and the 1582 Rheims N. T.] that are placed on the corrupt stream? Some of the other translations that KJV-only authors place on their good or pure stream of Bibles [such as Peshitta, Old Latin, Waldensan Bibles, Wycliffe's, etc.] also have readings and renderings that supposedly come from the corrupt stream.

    The actual evidence from the claimed two streams conflicts with inconsistent man-made KJV-only reasoning.
     
  8. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    :laugh: OK so what's your point?
     
  9. Maestroh

    Maestroh
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well There Is One Way...

    What is ironic is that those who espouse this are themselves espousing [forbidden term snipped], plain and simple. It is a text critical dualism that elevates Satan to the equivalent of God.

    In the KJV Only theory, there are two streams of manuscripts.

    1) The Byzantine text - a text without one shred of evidence that it existed prior to the fourth century that is generally in abundant agreement but uses Latin interpolations to give us the preserved Word of God in the English KJV.

    2) The corrupt text which was (supposedly)
    a) doctored by heretics
    b) mutilated by Origen
    c) set aside for 1,500 years - the only way to supposedly account for their existence
    d) pulled out of a trash can by Tischendorf
    e) used by Westcott and Hort to formulate a textual theory that has overrun Christendom the last 125 years.

    Notice the obvious problem:

    WHO preserved the Alexandrian text? There are only three possible answers to that question.

    1) God.

    But the KJV Onlyist would never say this because it obliterates his position.

    2) Satan

    The KJVO folks have never actually considered the fact that IF THIS IS TRUE then SATAN is more powerful than God - plain and simple. Satan has thus managed to give mss. with a traceable history back to the original exemplified in virtually all of the ancient versions, translations, and mss. He has even seen fit to destroy early Byzantine exemplars.

    3) Man

    This, too, is problematic because it smacks of naturalism. For men to have preserved the Alexandrian text, they must have been either motivated by good or bad. And that takes you right back to choices one or two.

    I do find it sad that for the KJV Only theory to be true, Satan must be as powerful or more powerful than God.

    Dualism. You gotta love it.
     
    #9 Maestroh, Nov 29, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 29, 2007
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    As evidenced by the previous post there is too much potential for this thread to degenerate into an ugly KJVO debate which does the fit the criteria of this pforum which is Bible versions and translations.

    I am closing the thread and asking Askjo to respond either by PM or in a new thread where he lists what is views as inappropriate translations and why.
     
    #10 NaasPreacher (C4K), Nov 29, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 29, 2007
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...