just curious

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by bro. coley, Jul 14, 2002.

  1. bro. coley

    bro. coley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    while visiting the life size tabernacle in lancaster PA,the tour guide corrected the KJB concerning apart of the tour. my question is why did she correct the KJB or why not one of a hundred other versions? [​IMG]
     
  2. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why, indeed! It's pretty obvious, ain't it? Satan is on a roll.
     
  3. bro. coley

    bro. coley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    thanks granny this is my first time Im useing the hunt & peck system.
     
  4. GrannyGumbo

    GrannyGumbo
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/Granny.gif">

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't worry none~me too. And old "Arthur"-itus lives with me constantly(but this sure beats trying to hold a pen). God will bless your efforts.
     
  5. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    i wldn't know. perhaps the 100 others have been corrected over time, just as the KJB possibly corrected the Bishops', Douay, n Geneva Bibles.
     
  6. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because the KJV is the most universally recognized English Bible - and has the most recognized errors of translation as well.
     
  7. bro. coley

    bro. coley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    please give an example of the errors. but not to complicated,as Im not a scholar. thanks
     
  8. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you want a doctrinal error, a translational error, or a textual error? [​IMG]
     
  9. bro. coley

    bro. coley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doctrinal
     
  10. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the KJV, 1 Tim 6:10 says "For the love of money is the root of all evil:". Other versions have "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil" or similar.

    Now, it can be argued that the KJV is a valid translation of the Greek. Technically, this is true, but the Greek does not *have* to be translated that way. The second reading above is also a technically accurate translation.

    Yet the KJV's reading results in a doctrinal error. For it teaches that all evil has the love of money as its root, but it is evident (within scripture and without) that is is not true. Rape does not have the love of money as its root. Pride usually does not either. Same with a multitude of other evils. In fact, the verse makes evil impossible before money was invented to be loved. Yet we know there was evil as far back as the garden of evil, and even further. How did this evil have the "love of money" as its root?

    That should be enough, but it even gets more interesting when we compare another verse from the KJV. Isa 45:7 (KJV) says "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (How the Onlyists would have a field day if this reading was in the NIV instead of the KJV ;) ). If the LORD creates evil, but the love of money is the root of all evil, then we must deduce that the evil the Lord creates is because of his love for money.

    Of course, that's all ridiculous. Instead, 1 Tim 6:10 is a simple doctrinal error in the KJV, the result of a poor (but technically accurate) choice of words to translate into. The alternate reading I listed above is also a technically accurate translation, but avoids the doctrinal error.

    Brian

    [ July 14, 2002, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
     
  11. bro. coley

    bro. coley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the KJV, 1 Tim 6:10 says "For the love of money is the root of all evil:". Other versions have "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil" or similar.

    Now, it can be argued that the KJV is a valid translation of the Greek. Technically, this is true, but the Greek does not *have* to be translated that way. The second reading above is also a technically accurate translation.

    Yet the KJV's reading results in a doctrinal error. For it teaches that all evil has the love of money as its root, but it is evident (within scripture and without) that is is not true. Rape does not have the love of money as its root. Pride usually does not either. Same with a multitude of other evils. In fact, the verse makes evil impossible before money was invented to be loved. Yet we know there was evil as far back as the garden of evil, and even further. How did this evil have the "love of money" as its root?

    That should be enough, but it even gets more interesting when we compare another verse from the KJV. Isa 45:7 (KJV) says "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (How the Onlyists would have a field day if this reading was in the NIV instead of the KJV ;) ). If the LORD creates evil, but the love of money is the root of all evil, then we must deduce that the evil the Lord creates is because of his love for money.

    Of course, that's all ridiculous. Instead, 1 Tim 6:10 is a simple doctrinal error in the KJV, the result of a poor (but technically accurate) choice of words to translate into. The alternate reading I listed above is also a technically accurate translation, but avoids the doctrinal error.

    Brian
    </font>[/QUOTE]It seems to me that you are taking words here out of context.the writer is speaking in the dispensation of grace.Doctrinally you must ask who is speaking,what is he saying, and to whom is he speaking. just doctrinaly speaking.
     
  12. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I totally disagree, but for the sake of argument, suppose you are right. How is the love of money the root of all evil if we limit the passage to the "dispensation of grace"? Do you believe that if something doesn't have the love of money as its root, it isn't evil?
     
  13. bro. coley

    bro. coley
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    I totally disagree, but for the sake of argument, suppose you are right. How is the love of money the root of all evil if we limit the passage to the "dispensation of grace"? Do you believe that if something doesn't have the love of money as its root, it isn't evil?</font>[/QUOTE]it is the root of all evil in the subject matter that Paul is discussing. stay in the context of the passage and rightly devide the word of truth 2 Tim.2:15
     
  14. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is one thing to say I'm wrong, and another to explain how I'm wrong. Please, go ahead.
     
  15. ChristianCynic

    ChristianCynic
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cc2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. {Romans 3:4, KJV}

    The error is at the beginning. The phrase is 'May it not be;' not "God forbid." The name of God is NOT in the text. There are at least 10 other verses in the epistles with this error in the KJV.
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    What did the guide correct?
     
  17. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    archaisms:

    "So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD..."
    "Then said his wife unto him ..."
    " In all this did not Job sin with his lips."

    Speak this way, do you? You are Yoda only if Star Wars from! :rolleyes: :D
     
  18. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is an archaism an error?
     
  19. KEVO

    KEVO
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Pastor Larry, Bro. Coley is my pastor.Now why don't you tell him how he is teaching me unsound doctrine,and all the other stuff you said about him. Take it easy on them Bro.Coley ;)
     
  20. KJVTIM

    KJVTIM
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because the KJV is the most universally recognized English Bible - and has the most recognized errors of translation as well.</font>[/QUOTE]
     

Share This Page

Loading...