Question For KJVO'ers

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Rippon, Mar 22, 2007.

  1. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Let's say someone went to a very strict nation ( say strongly Muslim ) and carried a small Bible in their luggage . It's a "Bible" in the view of non-KJVO'ers . It may not be their particular cup-a-tea' , but a Bible nonetheless . Let's say that version was an NLTse for instance . The person carrying that book is found out . The officials cause him no end of grief . The government of the oppressive nation gets involved . The bookster gets in serious trouble . You have claimed for a long while that the only real , authentic , Word of God is the KJV . Would you come to the defence of the "truth" and tell those officials that a mistake has been made ? "The only true Bible is the KJV ? Kindly let the NLT'er off , he's not guilty of your crime ." Or maybe , you would be carrying the KJV in your luggage and wouldn't want to attract attention to yourself . Would your KJV Only view be altered in this situation ?
     
  2. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    I very respectfully submit that your question would fall under the following catagory:
    But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 2 Timothy 2:23

    Not true. We have claimed that the KJV is the preserved Word of God for English-speaking people. There are most certainly other translations that can claim the same distiction in their respective languages. The issue is not the translation; this issue is the text.

    Not at all. The "bookster" would be guilty of smuggling in a translation of the Bible, albeit an inferior translation IMHO.
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    So in your view Pastor Bob , the NLTse is an inferior translation , but still the Word of God , correct ? Is it partially preserved ?
     
  4. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    In my opinion, the NLT is a translation of inferior texts. It is only preserved to the degree that it contains readings which agree with what I consider to be the preserved text. The NLT is a Bible; I would not go so far as to say that it is the Word of God as is the KJV.
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    So the NLTse ( which you have a copy of to make your determinations , I'm sure ) is somewhat the Word of God ? And languages which do not base their translations on the same texts (as the many-varied eclectic base behind the KJV ) are not really in possession of the Word of God ?
     
    #5 Rippon, Mar 22, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 22, 2007
  6. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    It is the Word of God in as much as it agrees with the preserved text. Seeing that it's New Testament is translated from "the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament: the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (fourth revised edition, 1993), and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (twenty- seventh edition, 1993)," the agreements are not enough to say any more than this translation "contains" the Word of God.

    They are to the same degree that the non-preserved text English versions are in possession of the Word of God.

    I assume you mean "eclectic" here. If so, I have to disagree that over 95% agreement in extant mss is eclectic.
     
  7. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    The phraseology "contains the Word of God " is an old liberal belief .

    Pastor Bob , I am familiar with the KJV . I asked in a round-about way before , but do you actually own a NLTse ? It would help with your argumentation if you had a copy to examine for yourself .
     
  8. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    But nonetheless an accurate description of my opinion of the MVs.

    I do not own a physical copy. I have access to the text via the internet. I understand the translation method used in this translation, and am familiar with the two texts from which the New Testament is translated. Again, the issue is the text.
     
  9. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Your question was regarding any MV, not the NLTse specifically. I do own versions other than the KJV, but fail to see how owning them could help my argument on this issue.
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    So the MV's are one monolithic group as you see it Pastor Bob? With a sweeping motion of your hand The Message is in the basic category as the HCSB , or even the NASU ? These versions merely contain the Word of God to varying degrees . If that is your belief ( please tell me I am mistaking your view here ) you sincerely wrong .
     
  11. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Not really. The MV are as diverse as the manuscript evidence upon which they are based.

    You give me far too much credit. Every modern version, with the exception of those based upon the preserved text, is in the "basic category" of being a translation of the inferior UBS and/or NA texts.

    To the degree that they agree with the preserved Majority text.

    You're going to have to back up your assertion with more than a blanket statement. I'm open-minded; give me some substance to disprove my opinion.
     
  12. Christlifter

    Christlifter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    nice...

    :applause:

    Please gentlemen, I enjoy this scholarly debate!

    Keep this thread alive!

    Amen!
     
  13. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I'm not by any stretch a scholar CL . I thought some others would have stepped in by now to join the discussion . They could have added some learned weight .
    But I will emphasize again that Pastor Bob said that the NLTse ( as a representative of MV's ) was a version of the Bible . Yet he went on to say -- it is not necessarily the Word of God . That is , ( need to be charitable here ) dualistic thinking . The NLTse is the Bible and so is the King James Version ( it was a lightly modified remake ) . There is no distinction between the "Bible" and the "Word of God ." the terms mean the same thing .

    Permit me to list some scholars that I am familiar with . They are just a handful of the translation team for the NLTse . I think most of you know about their credentials . Many of them worked on other Bible translations as well .

    Daniel Block
    Gordon Wenham
    Trempor Longman
    Richard Pratt
    Craig Blomberg
    Grant Osborne
    Scot McKnight
    Robert Stein
    Darrel Bock
    Philip Comfort
    D.A. Carson
    Doug Moo
    Robert Mounce
    Moises Silva
    Harold Hoehner
     
  14. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    3,461
    Likes Received:
    45
    Every modern version, every English version, every foreign translation is a "version" of the Bible. The only "true versions" are those which accurately represent the originals.

    I have four children. At times I would hear four different versions of the same story. Only one was the true version; the others may have been close and contained partial truth, but only one was the actual truth.

    The NLTse is a Bible and so is the King James Version. But only one of them is a true version of the Word of God, IMO.

    There is a world of difference in these two terms. The word "Bible" appears no where in the Word of God. It is derived from the Latin word "biblia," which simply means, "book." The term "ta biblia" was used to refer to many sacred writings before the time of Christ, many of which were not included in the canon of Scripture.

    The Word of God, on the other hand, is the "God-breathed" Scripture that Paul mentions in II Timothy 3:16. To say that the NLTse is "a Bible" is not at all equating it with the preserved Word of God.
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    This thread has the potential to degenerate. So far our brethren have kept it clean and above board - lets all keep it that way so the thread can remain open.
     
  16. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,970
    Likes Received:
    128
    Yeah, a moderator says my Bible only "contains the word of God". :tear:
    I might be accused of promoting post-modernist values but I disagree.
    We have four GOSPELS too. Which one is the true version???
    Clearly the Scriptures reveal that we can have different versions of the same story, different view points, different perspectives, different emphasis; all pointing to one truth.

    I think that when you say that YOUR favorite version is the only version that is the word of God you have gone further than Jesus, further than the apostles and further than the early church in defining what is Scripture.

    Rob
     
  17. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would not be so presumptious as to assume I know much about most of these individuals, you have cited, here. But I have some rudimentary knowledge about three of them (Bock, Silva, and Hoehner), and a bit of tangental info about four more (Blomberg, Carson, Mounce, and Wenham), and have heard the names of three others, about which I really know nothing.

    The one thing I do know, is there are no "liberals", in the bunch there, that I am familiar with, especially the "Dallas" crowd.

    So please, let's not move into any "guilt by association" trap.

    And I basically agree with Rippon, here.

    Ed
     
  18. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm leaving this one alone. Mom always said, "If you can't say something nice..." ;)
     
  19. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    You surely could say something nice to Language Cop, being as he hasn't 'busted' you, don't you think? :laugh: :laugh:

    Ed
     
  20. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fair enough! Does this street run both ways? I believe I have seen some "blanket statements" on, or from, "both sides", here, but that could just be me. And how does one come to the knowledge that the "Majority text" is superior, in the first place? (FTR, I too, am Majority text, preferred.) But consistent with this would seem to be that a translation from the "MT" such as the English Majority Text Version (although I tend to be extremely suspicious of any "one-man" translation, simply because one cannot keep from being influenced by one's own biases) would be the "best" available. Let's make sure that this wording of "preserved Majority text" is not really 'code' for the Textus Receptus, especially TR1894, namely Scrivner's "reverse translation" from an edition of the KJV, valuable though that work is. There are simply some significant variances between the 'MT' and the 'TR', all of which are 'eclectic' in some degree.
    This statement is very troubling, to me, at best. Especially from a Moderator, albeit not one on this forum. The NLT raises some question, of its own, I would also assume, not owning one, but possessing its "daddy", the "Living Bible". 'Nuff said! About both!
    That is some of the 'code', to which I previously referred. And I submit that, at best, it violates at least the 'spirit' of one of the BB rules, for this forum, even couched behind "IMO". That is my opinion, on that. :)

    One thing I would like to address, is why there seems to be little question about the OT, but only the NT. There are virtually as many 'variances' as to actual and accurate wording in the Hebrew, as there are in the Greek. Yet somehow the focus in about 90% of instances seem to focus on the NT? What's wrong with this picture? :confused:

    Ed
     
    #20 EdSutton, Mar 24, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 24, 2007

Share This Page

Loading...