Perfect Translation

Thanks. What people don't understand is how translating works. There is more than one way to express something in one language from another language. Sometimes we can use a couple of extra words and sometimes fewer words to get the message across.

Examples
English (12 words) This is an example of how you have a difference of words.
Spanish (11 words)Este es un ejemplo de cómo tener una diferencia de palabras.
Greek (13 words) Αυτό είναι ένα παράδειγμα για το πώς έχετε μια διαφορά από τις λέξεις.
Russian (9 words)Это пример того, как у вас есть разница слов.

This is from the Google translator, not my doing

Same thing but from 9-12 words used in the different language.

 

And, it's here that the KJVO argument falls on its face. They can't. It's a destructive man made doctrine that divides the body of Christ rather than bringing people together.

 

You are absolutely correct, I, cannot prove it, but that does not mean it is not the perfectly preserved version in English. I believe that by faith.

Some of you fellows just don't get it, we are to live by faith, not proof. I can't prove Moses parted the Red Sea, but I believe it to be true.

You can spend your lifetime spinning your wheels and you will never know the truth through scholarship. Sooner or later (it appears later) you will realize this is a matter of faith.

 

MY faith that Moses parted the Red Sea is because the Bible says He did. On what is your faith that God's truth is only In the KJV based?

 

Winman, if it's just your faith based opinion then why do you keep posting fallacious argument after argument?

 

Problem! You can show me in the Bible where Moses parted the Red Sea. But can you show me where we were promised a perfect translation? We are to live by faith, yes. But not faith in made up stuff. We are to live by faith in the Word.

EDIT: I didn't see that C4K had already asked this!

 

Does it really matter? You won't believe.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


God not only said he would preserve his words, he said they are pure, that means without error or corruption. The original autographs no longer exist and have not for centuries, yet God's perfect word must still exist.

I believe it is in the KJB. Where do you think it is? Don't say the original autographs, because they don't exist any more.

 

Winman and I are on the same page here.

We both believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word for English speaking people, in the KJB, yet the other side of the argument is that.....it hasn’t been preserved in any single Bible at all.

I don’t know about Winman, but it would bless my heart, for any of you to come out and say, “God has perfectly preserved His word in the NKJV, or the ASV, etc.
....but you won’t do that.
--------------------------------------------------
The wall that Winman and I are banging our heads against, is unbelief:
Not believing that God is capable of preserving His Word for His people.

Many times all of you have said.......”We believe that He has preserved His Word”, but you can’t really believe that, because you can’t point me to a book(one book), that “is God’s Word”!
--------------------------------------------------
C4K will soon shut this thread down, because it is going nowhere:

Those who believe that God is capable of preserving His Word, MUST be able to point it out.
(If you can’t point it out, than you have to admit that the scholars are still looking for it!)

 

Yep, the problem is unbelief.

And if God did specifically name a translation, if he said he would preserve his Word in the King James Bible, than how many different versions of the King James would there be?

I would bet there would be dozens if not hundreds all claiming to be the proper KJB. So identifying the specific text would not help at all.

Sooner or later you will just have to believe. That is the only option you really have. Someday you will realize that.

 

Actually, God parted the Red Sea. I believe God did it & we have a record in all faithful versions.

Which version is the matter of faith about, BTW? 1769? 1823? 1611?

 

God has preserved His word for us in all faithful versions.

Why do you have trouble understanding that simple statement?

 

Hello Rbell

You asked.....

Well here is why:

In response to one of my previous posts, jbh28 responded..........

He was talking about how one of those “faithful versions”, had changed Matthew 16:18...,

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18 AV)

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18 NKJV)

---------------------------------------
Well I looked up this Greek word, that jbh28 is so proud of..........

Hades
Hades (hâ¹dêz) noun
1. Greek Mythology. a. The god of the netherworld and dispenser of earthly riches. b. This netherworld kingdom, the abode of the shades of the dead.
2. Also hades. Hell.
[Greek Haidês.]

Now could the NKJV, be trying to make people think, that the Bible is Mythology?
--------------------------------------------------
Why replace Hell at all: It has worked great for 400 years.

 

Then why did C4K spend half this thread asking me to prove the NKJV contained text from the Critical Text?

You guys are amazing, you change the rules as you go along. In one post you say no version or translation is perfect, in the next post you say they all are. What a joke.

I agree with Stilllearning, just pick one version for your own and place your faith in that. As I heard a preacher once say,

"The man who will not stand for something will fall for anything."

 

They didn't replace hell. The Greek word there is hades. Go look it up. The KJV changed the word hades to hell. The NKJV kept it hades.

καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου(hades) ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης

hades is a transliteration of the Greek word. In other words, it's the word the God put there.

 

The reason is that stilllearning said the KJV was influenced by the critical text. This stems from other kjvo's (like Gail Riplinger claiming it is different 1200 times). Nobody said that all the translations are perfect. no man made translation is perfect. it is just that, a translation of the Bible. the KJV translators did it almost 400 years ago and did an outstanding job. There are some translations today that have done good also.

 

They do exist in the extant copies of the original manuscripts, I believe that by faith as well.

There have been several revisions to the AV. There are two different modern editions of the AV (Cambridge and Oxford). They are not the same and there is no way to know which of the revsions or editions is "pure".

The original archtype of the English AV manuscript has been lost.

You are in the same boat as those whom you accuse.

I know some of your brother's responses have been less than kind.

Why return in like kind? Why stir up the proverbial hornets nest and get stung?

The complete and preserved word of God is there in the 1000's of copies of the originals. The translations are inspired by derivation according to their faithfulness to those copies of the originals.

Continue to study your KJB and obey it.
God knows where men have erred.

HankD

 

Oh, good grief.

So you allow a dictionary to dictate your theology? How 'bout letting God's word do it, like I do?

You're being intellectually dishonest here. You compare versions, then use an extra-biblical source to prove which version is "wrong." That's just silly.

 

The truth is that despite all the claims, like the false one made that the NKJV is a hybrid of traditional and critical texts, it really has nothing at all to do with text.

A few Christians have put their faith in human reasoning to select one English translation and called it perfect. They have no Biblical, historical, or theological basis for that choice. But that is where they choose to put their faith.

I'll trust God to provide His word for English speakers in the 14th century, and the 21st century. I won't limit Him by saying He can only give His word to English speakers 400 years ago. My God is stronger than that.

 

Hello C4K

You said.......

For the purpose of discussion, don’t you think that those of us who see the KJB as the Bible that every English speaking Christian should use, have an “historical basis”, for that decision?

I say that because of the hundreds of years that God’s Spirit filled people trusted it and were wonderfully blessed by exclusively using that one Bible.

In comparison to the condition of today’s Church(christendom).
--------------------------------------------------
What do you think?

 

There is no doubt that one translation dominated the English speaking for a little over 200 years. At the beginning there was no choice. Only the state church translated, secular king ordered translation was permitted by law. Other English version were illegal.

By wiping out the competition the king's official translation did rise to almost total dominance.

I am grateful that we are past the day when we must use a government authorised translation.

I love that translation. As I type it is the only translation open on my desk. It is an excellent translation. I grew up with it. I use it every time I prepare a message or a lesson. But I am not bound to a doctrine which has no Biblical, historical, or theological basis.

Those who choose to exclusively use the KJV are using an excellent translation of God's word, but it is wrong to try and bind everyone to that choice and to accuse them others of 'unbelief.' Those who choose differently are no less 'Spirit-filled' than they are.

If one chooses to use only the KJV, fine. But please don't confuse the issue by making false claims like 'the NKJV was heavily influenced by the CT' or 'the NKJV is a hybrid translation of the CT and TR.' Those statements simply are not true.