KJVO and other languages

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Rev. Joshua, Nov 19, 2002.

  1. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I understand the KJVO position correctly, it's that one of the editions of the King James Bible is literally the sole preserved Word of God for the English-speaking world.

    A couple of quesions:

    - At what point does English change sufficiently that it is no longer the English of the KJV and therefore a new translation is needed? If we reach the point where the KJV reads like Beowulf (unannotated), is a new translation warranted?

    - Is there an authoritative, single translation for the other languages? Is there a website or document that lists them? What are the criteria for determining which translation is the preserved Word of God in another language?

    Joshua

    [ November 19, 2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua ]
     
  2. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had one KJVO tell me that if it was in another language and was translated word for word from the KJV was okay. [​IMG]
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's interesting to note that many in 1611 felt the language of the original KJV was archaic, even for that time period.
     
  4. Siegfried

    Siegfried
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Man, my heart just breaks for the poor Greek and Hebrew speaking people thousands of years ago who only had the originals, rather than the Greek and Hebrew versions translated from the KJV translated from the TR compiled from a couple Greek manuscripts and the Vulgate. [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  5. ThyWordHaveIHid

    ThyWordHaveIHid
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess i would be considered a KJVO person and I am not ashamed of my position. I think it is the most acurate version and the most beautiful. I feel it is closest to the origional manuscripts. What about all the other translations that take out the blood, or leave out whole verses? We will have to agree to disagree on this subject. Can a person be saved a use another version? Of course they can. I think those who use other versions just have not been shown the errors they contain. I love the Lord with all my heart and I love to memorize from the KJV. God is Good!

    ThyWordHaveIHId and I am not :confused:
     
  6. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Feelings have very little to do with what is most similar to the original manuscripts. Feelings are deceptive. What are the facts that you base your conclusion on?
    If you believe what is written before the dashes then the second statement is false... you are :confused: .

    Amen and bless you. I believe the KJV to be a superior translation. I like to memorize, use, and study it. I love the Lord as well and yes God is good... but I am emphatically anti-KJVOnlyism.
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Probably not a good idea to let this thread melt into a KJV only debate. Getting back to the ESV discussion, I think it's pretty accurate to the original Hebrew and Greek, and easy to read on top of that.

    It's interesting to note that other faiths that have written texts generally only consider the text in the original written language to be sacred, and copies translated to other languages are not considered sacred.* Perhaps we Christians could learn something from that. The Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek are inspired, but the English translations are simply translations of the inspired texts. Of course, that leads to another problem with the NT. It was written in Greek, but Jesus probably spoke mostly in Aramaic. So what's the real deal there? Would it be the Greek text, or the spoken word? If one differs slightly from the other, what does that mean to us?

    Oh, I could go on and on, but I gotta keep my head from spinning :eek:

    *NOTE - I received a request by the one of the moderators to remove references to specific faiths; therefore, the first sentence in the second paragraph has been modified from my original post.

    [ November 20, 2002, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
     
  8. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, but back to the topic. Will those of you who are KJVOnly answer the two questions above. I can restate them if you want me to.

    Joshua
     
  9. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Reverend Joshua,

    My friend Stefan who comes from Germany has a German bible that was translated from the same texts as the KJV.

    To suggest that only the English worded KJV is correct is seriously in error. It makes me wonder if this idea isnt in some way connected to "British Israelism" which is another racist doctrine added on to some churches.
     
  10. romanbear

    romanbear
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Rev Joshua;
    My answer to your first question is, no! The English in the KJV is very understandable, it's just that some like to take chances and change God's word.Right now there are so many versions of the Bible that we could actually loose the best one by being lost among the many. People like to have it there way instead of God's way.This why there are so many versions on the market.$$$$
    Answer to your second question;
    I was at a Bible study. The leader and everyone at the the study was reading from a KJV but all I could do was listen because my version did nothing but confuse what we were studying.It literally did not read as the KJV. It doesn't even say the same thing.The thing I was surprised about was that the KJV does have authority.It reads differently because of the Kings English and when others read it to me it had the sound of authority like when a General is addressing his troops or when the presidents speaks.You know instinctively that it has authority.When someone quotes a verse from the KJV you know it's from God's word simply because it doesn't sound like everyday language and shouldn't.
    I'm not KJVO because I converse with Christians who use different version.You can by the way be a Christian and use a newer version.The whole thing is that we as Christians have to remember that a house divided against it self will fall and all the newer versions do is bring in confusion and division, after all who wants to take a hand truck full of Bibles to church so we can understand what's being said and follow along in the scripture. [​IMG] I use other versions This includes the NASB, NIV, NKJV, YLT, TR, LX, GNT, I now have about 25 different versions I guess you could call me a collector.So could someone tell me Did God actually intend for man to have so much confusion over His word I don't think so!.So who do you think did?Funny the KJV is translated in to more languages than you might think, Italian,Spanish,Russian, that I know of.I also have to say this The KJV is responsible for the leading of more people to Christ than any version.So why do we need the others.Could it be our own pride because we don't like it when something sounds different. For those who have trouble understanding it, should take English classes and learn how to use a dictionary.
    Romanbear
    Peace
     
  11. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are you aware of just how different English is likely to be 400 years from now? At that point would it still be preferrable for English-speakers to struggle through the KJV (even though it would be like learning a new language)?

    Joshua
     
  12. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    The same can be said for the Book of Mormon. Actually, I am capable of writing text that "doesn't sound like everyday language," but I don't claim inspriration.
     
  13. ChristianCynic

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

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    [ November 23, 2002, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: ChristianCynic ]
     
  14. romanbear

    romanbear
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Rev Joshua;
    Yes. I'm aware that if Christ doesn't come before the next four hundred years that the English language will be different than it is now.But the last four hundred years haven't changed it so much that I can't understand the words beget, thee, thou, and Ye, Actually I find words in the NIV and NASB that aren't even in a desk reference dictionary.
    I wonder have you read a copy of Shakespeare works lately. I think the people at the university of Shakespeare would get rather upset if someone came in and started changing the language in his plays. They just wouldn't be the same would they.I think that changing them to a more modern language would change the original meaning don't you?.The story lines would no longer be about long ago and wouldn't relate as much to the past.
    The last books of the Bible were written two thousand years ago if we modernize it, it changes that.The whole reason that there are new versions is not because the language has changed. It's because, we've have become arrogant in our own pride thinking we can improve on God's work and I do believe that God had something to do with the translation of the KJV.I believe that King James answered a call of God by producing the KJV.I don't believe even for a minute that he came up with the idea on his own.I think that if he hadn't order it to be, then there would be a lot more without Christ .The preservation people of this world be upset if we changed the language in the constitution or the works of Josephus.
    Sometimes change is good, but not when it causes division and confusion.Compare col. 2:18 in the KJV and other versions and ask your self if this is a big deal or not.I could give you a lot more references than this if you like.Tell me which version is right.
    Romanbear
    Peace
     
  15. Rev. Joshua

    Rev. Joshua
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/cjv.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    romanbear

    I've read several different editions of Shakepeare - I was a literature major as an undergraduate and am a linguist by training. I have no trouble reading Shakespeare, and only moderate trouble with Middle English, Pushkin in the original Russian, Marquez in the original Spanish, and the bibilical writings in Greek and Hebrew. It is certainly possible to learn the languages to appreciate these works, but certainly not necessary for the average reader.

    Unlike the KJV, Shakespeare's plays and sonnets were written originally in English. As with the biblical texts, they have to be translated into other languages - and they will eventually have to be translated into English to be readable (as with Beowulf or even Chaucer in some cases). Such is the nature of language.

    Actually romanbear, changes in the language are the primary impetus for new translations. Textual criticism is certainly a factor, but much less so.

    Joshua

    [ November 24, 2002, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Rev. Joshua ]
     
  16. romanbear

    romanbear
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi RSR; [​IMG]
    How do you define inspiration? [​IMG] I believe that God's word in it's original text was God breathed in that the writers were taking dictation as to what to write. Ministers of God have to be God inspired don't they?I certainly am not interested in listening to a preacher whom I feel, is not God inspired.I feel that King James was inspired by God to order the KJV.Was it not successful? In the bringing in of thousands if not millions of sheep.I know that the KJVO's have been over zealous in there pursuits to preserve the KJV.On the other hand the proponents of the newer versions have also bent over backwards to make the KJV look bad.and to put there own versions in a better light, by hurling insults. In heated debate proponents on both sides of the issue have lied and slandered each other.To the point of disgrace on all who are Christian.In my opinion the newer versions have come into being simply to cash in on the most popular writing in History.We've all been duped in to thinking that a rewrite is necessary.based on a few words.How many words in the KJV do you not understand? [​IMG] Can you explain just what it is that is wrong with the grammar or composition in the KJV.Are you going to let some salesman selling a new version say you will understand his version better, implying that you aren't smart enough to understand the KJV.because if you are not then, think about what the proponents of the newer versions are saying in my opinion they are saying the same thing the popes of the Catholic church have been saying for 1500 years that we shouldn't try to understand the Bible. That only the priest can define it for us. So think about it, do we want someone we don't even know to tell us what it all means? thus a rewrite is in order [​IMG] besides what makes these people so intelligent that they can improve on the most accurate version on the market...Oh I don't know is it $$$.
    Romanbear [​IMG]
    Peace
     
  17. ChristianCynic

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

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2001
    Messages:
    927
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your feelings in relation to your Anglican Bible are ********* as to its value.

    (by PreachtheWord - it is still his opinion right or wrong)

    [ November 25, 2002, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Preach the Word ]
     
  18. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,079
    Likes Received:
    103
    Modern Christians are not inspired in the same way the writers of Scriptures were. If they were, then we would be writing new Scripture today.

    A man may be used of God, moved by God, touched by God, directed by God, but he will not receive universal instruction for the Church that is God-breathed in the same way the writers of the canon were.

    Which does not answer the question of why, because the KJV "sounds different," it would necessarily be THE preserved translation. This seems very similar to the medieval Catholic belief that Jerome's Vulgate was the final translation of the Bible that would ever be needed, a notion Jerome would have laughed at.
     
  19. romanbear

    romanbear
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Christian cynic;
    You know I'm not quite sure if you are saying what you have written or, just repeating what someone else has said. First of all I don't participate in gossip.I do my best to separate myself from them who do.
    I'm sorry you don't understand that all religion is a very emotional thing. For with out the emotion of a little child, there is no realization of God in the first place.Since God is Love and also Love being a feeling, How could you possibly Love God without feelings.Maybe your right my feelings aren't worth anything.But I'm very happy that My Lord and Savior has feelings for me and they are worth more than the whole universe.
    While your thoughts as to my feelings are meaningless to me. Your judgment of others Love will not go unnoticed by the Lord.I forgive you for judging me and my feelings.I will also pray for you.
    Romanbear
    Peace
     
  20. romanbear

    romanbear
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi RSR [​IMG]

    I think you miss understood me.My interpretation of inspired by God,is (called).
    Being called is inspired.How ever you are right about scripture, I would be suspicious of anyone claiming to have new revelations from God.Perhaps in my post the other day I should have used the term ("called") rather than ("inspired").

    Also let me set your heart at ease I'm not Catholic nor have I ever been.Catholics don't use the KJV they use there own catholic version.For what ever reason they don't believe there own version as it is written but believe the priest instead.Weather or not I believe that the KJV is the preserved word of God was never implied by me. I have only said that I believe it to be the most accurate.Until I find one that I am convinced is one more accurate, then I wont change my mind.I chased down Brian t's idea of Tyndale version simply because I realize that only God is infallible.I found that the Tyndale's Bible is fill with mistakes as well. Which is why it failed to make it out of the gate so to speak.I will never believe that Christ himself ever referred to the Passover as Easter since Easter it self is a pagan holiday for the celebration of renewal.I realize that the word Easter also appears in the KJV as well but in the book of Acts. I don't believe the Lord him self ever mentioned the word.let me say I have no memory of Him using it in the Bible.I'm only human and make no claim as to being 100% right. No one has a perfect faith.No one is perfect.and there is no Church that is perfect. The only perfection is God Him self.What do you think?.
    Romanbear
    Peace
     

Share This Page

Loading...