Memorization

Actually, the "poppycock" is stilllearning's backhanded slap against anything that is not the KJV. Oh, you didn't see it? I don't know how anyone could miss it actually, but let me point it out.

• "the problem of not having a single authoritative Bible in what ever language you may speak"
• "able to recall “exactly” what God said in his Word"
• "The Words of Scripture are what were inspired"
• "instead of “inspired Words”"

"Now, Trotter, you are trying to make something out of what is not there." Were this coming from most other posters I would agree, but stilllearning does this continuously in his posts. I, for one, am more than tired of the implied insult.

No one needs a single authoritative translation in any single language. To do so would be to elevate man's work above that which God inspired. No translation is inspired in and of itself, but the words from which it is translated are what God inspired. God did not use English (from ANY century), Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, or any other modern language to pen His word... and I praise Him that He did it that way.

To try to equate any translation with what God inspired is a slap in the face to God. Translation is a lousy means of communicating as meanings and nuances are lost in the process. Sure, translators could stop and explain and give us the meaning... but to do so would be to add volumes to what God gave us and would STILL be the product of what men think God meant to say.

Having several translations is a very good thing in that it prevents us from worshiping the book instead of the author. It also allows us to see different facets of a passage by comparing how it is translated in different translations. And it also keeps translators honest as people would immediately know if a group published something that was not God's word because we have so many others to compare it to. Plus there is the fact that languages today are alive and ever-changing with new words coming into play, meanings of words changing, and old words becoming obsolete; newer translations take these changes into account and help us to be better equipped to understand what God said and not what people thought it meant way back whenever.

 

Trotter,

I read between the lines also, but even if it wasn't a slap at anything NOT the "AV", it's still poppycock.

If you quote one word differently or out of KJV order does it cease to be God's word? (NOTE: I am NOT referring to those who obviously twist or doctrinally change God's Word- such as the JW's).

If you use modern English 'loves' instead of 'loveth' does it cease to be God's Word.

GOD FORBID!:smilewinkgrin:

 

Hi Mexdeaf

You asked.......

Of course not.

But they don’t stop there

Here is one of my favorite examples.
The Bible says........
1 John 5:7
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

But the folks that gave us the NIV, felt free to remove 16 words.....
1 John 5:7
“For there are three that testify:”
--------------------------------------------------
Once the door is opened, convincing people...“that nobody really knows what the Bible says”, they will feel free, to do what ever they want to it.

 

"But they don't stop there" and "they will feel free, to do what ever they want to it" are non sequiturs.

However, I think I understand... even if there is evidence that a scribe added something to what God actually told John to say, if it supports your doctrine, then that's NOT adding to God's Word. But even if there is a great deal of proof that it was added, and then it is not included in a translation, then that IS taking away from God's Word.

Am I the only one who sees the inconsistencies here??

By the way, there are MANY, MANY VERSES that support Trinitarian doctrine in the NT without using the dubious quotation from 1 John. So don't think that anything is lost by not having it there. It's convenient, but not necessary.

 

No. No, you're not.

 

Hi Bob

You said..........

Well that is not exactly the case...........

1John 5:7 (The Geneva Bible)
7 For there are thre, which beare recorde in heuen, the father, the worde, and the holie golt; and these thre are one.

1John 5:7 (The Bishop's Bible)
7 For there are three which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holy ghost, and these three are one.”

1John 5:7 (John Wycliffe’s Bible)
7 For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon.
--------------------------------------------------
Now as I have been saying: I trust the Judgement of the translators from the past, much more than I do those of today(especially since 1881).

This verse was trusted by God’s people to be part of God’s Word for hundreds of years, but this verse really isn’t the issue.
The issue is, “are we going to trust ANYONE”, to change or to correct “the Bible”?

I choose not to.

 

I have yet to see anyone post anything from ANY translation, or, for that matter, any ancient Scriptural manuscript, that points to any one ms, set of mss, or any translation in any language, as being the "be-all, end-all" writing of the Bible.

I believe we have over 5K known ancient Scriptural mss or fragments extant because GOD preserved them for us, intending that they be USED, COPIED, & TRANSLATED.

 

It seems that me and my friends are getting senior moments more often. So the memorized verses are not able to be recalled quite as well.

 

When one memorizes word-perfect he is able to quote it with more authority. The reasoning behind that is not because the translation is inspired but because he has more boldness and confidence that what he is quoting is what is written. And when questioned about it he will not doubt about what he is or has just quoted. If it is word-perfect it gives both authority and confidence to the one quoting it. It shows that "he knows his stuff." Someone who rambles and bumbles all over the passage isn't very sure of what the verse actually says. The one being witnessed to or taught will not be much impressed or perhaps even sure of the truth being taught.

 

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it!

I speak & read proficiently in three different languages -- all variants of English:

Early Modern England English - as in the KJV1611
Modern England English - as in the KJV1769 family of Bibles
Post-Modern South Central (Texas & Oklahoma) USofA English

 

I would think verbal plenary inspiration requires memorization.

 

Good post. :thumbsup:

 

Someone who has filtered his life through the Bible (and the converse) may not be able to quote it accurately (due to age-related or memory-related issues), but I guarantee you he can LIVE it accurately.

That, IMHO is FAR more important.

 

While that may be true it is far more important to not neglect what the person is capable of doing.

 

I usually say, "Romans x:xx tells us..." or "The bible says [insert meaning of verse(s)] in [book and chapter, sometimes verse]." Sure I could quote a translation word for word, but I don't. I prefer to give the message of the bible and not necessarily the word choices given by a translation committee.

When I am preaching I will read the verses being used, but will given the meaning from the verses referenced most of the time. I will also go back and cover the read text and exposit them.

Being able to explain the meaning and content of verses will serve better to explain the gospel and the message of God than trying to be letter perfect. This is especially true when using an older translation that does not use modern English as the word-for-word would have to be explained anyway. It is better to know and understand the verses than to be able to spout them and have no true understanding.

 

Excellent - I rarely quote a verse while sharing, even if I know it perfectly. I would rather say something like Trotter mentions here.

 

Sounds like a couple of NIV'ers to me! :smilewinkgrin: