Those Poor ‘Ole Misguided Anglican Translators!

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by AVBunyan, Feb 12, 2005.

  1. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Moderators – if this has already been posted feel free to delete – I’m getting old and my memory fails me. Thanks

    I hear a lot of talk today about those poor ole’ King James translators and how they just couldn’t get it right. Poor God – got caught off guard did he by those ‘ole, misinformed, misguided, lost, etc. “Anglican”, Puritan folks? On another thread a poster went so far as to call the AV the “Anglican Version” and even insinuated some or most of the “Anglican” translators were unsaved. Folks are amusing aren’t they? Who needs “Happy Days” reruns for amusement when you can tune in to this kind of stuff?

    Alright now – about this “man in charge” issue. Oh yea, this is what they are really saying! What these folks are saying is because the translators were not biologists, zoologists, nuclear physicists, etc. then they were not capable of handling the tough issues in the translation. And if these KJV translators were “qualified” (like today’s translators - HA!!!!) then they wouldn’t have put unicorns, leviathans, dragons, and Easter in the Bible. I mean – how did those “poor ole’ Anglican translators miss such glaring translations?!?!?! These King James Bible questioners take the world’s view of man – I guess they believe man runs things and overrules God in areas of translating committees. They can trust God for their salvation but when it comes to the committee in 1604-1611 they can’t believe or don’t want to believe that God would intervene and work all things out after the counsel of his own will – Eph. 1:11.

    I know these men were not inspired or prophets – they were sinners like you and me. I just believe what God had them put down was inspired – II Tim. 3:16.

    Now you will say, “Well, if God was in the committee in 1604 then he could be in the committees today. Questions:
    1. Why would God wait when the English language has gone downhill to the point where it has almost become street-gutter language? During 1611 the English language was at its peak.
    2. Why would God wait to update his word for the 100th time in the last 50 years during a time when “Christianity” is at the lowest state ever?
    3. Why would God use this modern, fleshly, worldly, carnal, apostate, compromising, weak, Bible-rejecting “Christianity” to “refine” his holy word?
    4. Why would God wait until just before he comes back to update his word again?!?!?! God quit speaking around 400 years before Christ’s first coming and it appears he quit speaking around 400 years before Christ’s second coming.

    As you well know, Moses was a murderer, David was an adulterer and a murderer yet God got some pretty good books from them under his providential hand so I guess God could use those “‘ole misguided Anglicans.”

    So, when I hear this junk that the “Anglicans” did this and that because of their background and this is why all these “mistranslations” and blunders came up then I attribute this to these KJV doubters of not taking the providential viewpoint of history.

    I don’t care if many of those translators were a-millennial, baby-sprinkling Anglicans or whatever. God put a book together and “any ole’ bush will do” with God. These KJV rejecters have a very small view of God and his providential hand in history. I’m sure some believed in some works salvation but they still translated Romans and Ephesians!!! Give me a break.

    I’m not blowing a gasket because I can’t figure out what a unicorn is - all I know it is there and I believe it. Do you know what I’m learning after all these years? When these folks don’t understand something they automatically assume it is an error. This is the height of pride – thinking you can understand all that is in the Bible.

    Brethren – if I run across something I don’t understand and God doesn’t show me then by simple faith I assume God is not ready to show me. I don’t assume it is an error and pull out the 250 Greek and Hebrew lexicons and try to sort it out!!! My, what confusion!

    You have to settle the issue – does God run things or man?

    I, for one, have grown weary of modern “intellectuals and scholars” bashing the KJV translators - like some of these modern “scholars” think they are smarter?

    Wasn’t this fun?

    God bless!!
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    All of this is human reasoning without any Bible basis.
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Answer your own question.

    It is clear from the Bible that translations were made, used, and considered God's Word. What is not clear is the notion that God chose one translation at any point in history.

    God didn't direct the making of the KJV any more than the Geneva, NKJV, NASB, etc. In His providence, He allowed men at various times using their scholarship to translate the Bible. Some are better, some are worse. All are subject to the fallibilities of the men who did the work.

    It is you and people like you who have arbitrarily decided on the KJV then ascribed that decision to God.

    Does God run things or do you?

    If God then you should be satisfied with what He has established... and KJVOnlyism ain't it.

    Some are. Some may not be.

    The NASB translators are/were the most doctrinally sound(in the biblical, conservative, fundamentalist sense) of any English translation group ever assembled. Their statement of faith states that salvation is by grace through faith without works.

    That doesn't make their work good much less perfect. It does however make them more spiritually obedient than the KJV translators... who would have persecuted people holding the doctrinal views of the NASB translators- and people like you and me.
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    So that people in the street could understand it. Not too much unlike the fact that the NT originals were given in Koine rather than classical Greek. One was the language of the common believer. The other was a language of elites.
    Prove that Christianity is at its lowest state ever. The gospel is still being spread throughout the world... even into China and other formally closed nations.

    More martyrs died in the 20th century than all others combined. I have posted info on this board that compared Christianity in 1900 to 2000. There are not only more professing born again believers now than then... there is a higher percentage of the population that professes Christ.

    Are there problems? Yes. But there were problems in 1611 too. Bible believers then were persecuted. Sound biblical doctrines were effectively outlawed by the state-church union. Moral conditions were not perfect at all either- Greed, lust, deception, pride, hatred, etc were all represented.
    His Word doesn't need refining... nor did it in 1611. Its original wording needs to be indentified as closely as possible using the evidence God saw fit to preserve and it needs to be translated accurately.

    I personally believe that not enough weight is given to the majority text... which differs from both the TR and CT versions.
    God didn't speak when the KJV was created. The translators translated what He spoke 1500+ years before.

    Before calling the words of the KJV the "speaking" of God, you have to provide some proof. If the KJV translators were not inspired, and even you admitted they weren't, then the words of the KJV are not inspired.

    The message expressed by those words being derived from the originals indeed is inspired but not the words.
     
  5. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    AVBunyan, let me ask you a few questions?

    Was English really at its peak when the spelling and grammar was inconsistent in 1611?

    How do you account for the many modifications of the KJV to the one we generally use today -- the Oxford 1769?

    If the Bible was "perfect" why were the corrections required?

    I also think you go over-the-line by saying "KJV rejectors" and "KJV doubters". Does anybody here know of anybody who rejects the KJV as being a very legitimate translation of the Word of God?

    Finally, I ask you, why would this perfect Word-Of-God be in English? Do all languages get their own perfect Bible? Or are we so priviledged?

    I humbly ask these questions based just on common sense, and only now mentioning the fact that C4K makes a very valid point that there are no promises of a perfect English translation anywhere in scripture (in the KJV or any other translation).
     
  6. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    And many of us have grown weary of theological fairy tales like "advanced revelation" and "the English corrects the Greek" and the BB invasion by the KJVO on their self-appointed Inquisition calling the Bibles that we use and love "satanic counterfeits" (or at least until they were thrown off the board for doing so).

    In a sentence: The whole KJVO theory crumbles when in 1613 the KJV translation committee said "Oops, we need to make some corrections and publish a revision".

    Bottom line: They were honest in this matter and corrected their mistakes (and in many subsequent revision/editions).

    HankD
     
  7. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you go to a dentist that uses only 17th century information and practices as well? ;)
     
  8. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Phillip for your response - I believe you to be sincere and cordial so I will seek to respond to some as time allows.

    Phillip asks:
    AVBunyan, let me ask you a few questions?

    1. "Was English really at its peak when the spelling and grammar was inconsistent in 1611?"

    According to many linguists it was. I have read their works and if I can find them I will post them.

    2. "How do you account for the many modifications of the KJV to the one we generally use today -- the Oxford 1769?"

    This has been covered before - not really concerned about the past - what I have in my hands now is what counts to me.

    3. "If the Bible was "perfect" why were the corrections required?"

    When you say the "Bible" are you referring to the original 1611? If so then this has been covered before. For example, If a publisher today sought to change Jesus with Joshua in Acts as mnay do then I don't panic - I just read over it. If I find a typo today I still don't panic and read by faith.

    4. "I also think you go over-the-line by saying "KJV rejectors" and "KJV doubters". Does anybody here know of anybody who rejects the KJV as being a very legitimate translation of the Word of God?"

    Good point - please allow me to clarify. I know many of you folks see the KJV as a reliable version and even call it the word of God and have respect for how God has used it. But you do reject the KJV in a sense that you do not believe it to be infallible as I do. You reject the infallible issue. Based upon that you do reject or have doubts - this is what I am referring to. I personally reject the modern versions as being reliable or being the word of God. This makes me a version rejector. Nothing bad meant towards your character or admiration for the KJV.

    5. "Finally, I ask you, why would this perfect Word-Of-God be in English?"
    What langauge should it be in? God is very practical - English is the main laguage of this age. What language would you suggest would be practical? Please refrain from saying the ancient laguages that few speak today. Moses and Pharaoh spoke in Egyptian, Moses wrote it in Hebrew - we now have it in English - Praiwe God for this!

    6. Do all languages get their own perfect Bible?
    Maybe they could - just no sure - I would not panic over this.

    7. Or are we so priviledged?
    Yes we are - what is so bad about that? - We should be very thankful. Abram was privileged to be chosen out of all the other heathen at the time of his choosing by God.

    8. I humbly ask these questions based just on common sense, and only now mentioning the fact that C4K makes a very valid point that there are no promises of a perfect English translation anywhere in scripture (in the KJV or any other translation).

    And because of your humilty and apparent honesty I thought you deserved some asnwer from me though I know my answers are sorely lacking and not the greatest.

    Please forgive my brifness here for my wrist is aching. Allow me to open up a bit here - mosts of the post I have posted here were written many moons ago when I could type without pain. What I've done lately (since last august) was to just pray about it and pull an article out of my "arsonel" and post it knowing it would be difficult for me to respond much - this bothered me but I posted anyway. Plus if someone had a smart-mouth attitude then I ignored them anyway (and yes, I've been guilty also but have since sought to make reform of my ways). Plus I've been under time restraints in my postings. Because of the above reaons I've been unable to respond like I'm used to responding and for this I apologize.

    Again - I've enjoyed the chat and though we do not agree on all I feel we could sit down over a cup of coffee and have some good fellowship around the Saviour!

    May God bless
     
  9. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    With that reasoning, God made a mistake for having the New Testament written in Koine Greek (i.e.-"common" Greek) rather than Classical Greek. [​IMG]
     
  10. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you go to a dentist that uses only 17th century information and practices as well? ;) [/QB][/quote]If the 17th century information and practices were better, then...yes. ;)

    God bless
     
  11. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the 17th century information and practices were better, then...yes. ;)
    </font>[/QUOTE]Break out the leeches and pliers.
     
  12. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    And down enough brandy to pass out.

    HankD
     
  13. Trotter

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here, here!!! [hic] ---falls off barstool while waving beer mug

    ====================================================

    And the KJVO say that we are our own final authority? The entire piece that AVBunyan posted was a work of personal opinion and presupposition.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  14. LRL71

    LRL71
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here, here!!! [hic] ---falls off barstool while waving beer mug </font>[/QUOTE]OMGLOLROFLOL!!! [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    I'm laughing so hard that I'm falling off my barstool!

    Hey, pass the nuts!!!! [​IMG]
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    All of this is human reasoning without any Bible basis. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother C4K -- Preach it! [​IMG]

    All bad questions.
    The main answer is that God wants everybody to
    have a chance to hear His Word in their Language.
    Like most, I don't go to Elezabethian Fairs
    to show the my sword.
     
  16. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    AVBunyan: "But you do reject the KJV in a sense
    that you do not believe it to be infallible as
    I do. You reject the infallible issue."

    Sorry, i believe that the KJV is infallible - and
    i have three infallible copies all written in a
    language spoken hundreds of years ago.

    AVBunyan: "I personally reject the modern versions as being
    reliable or being the word of God.
    This makes me a version rejector. Nothing
    bad meant towards your character or admiration for the KJV.'

    By your standards, you bash my Bibles.
    My infallible bible is a modern version.
    Come to think of it, so is your KJV1769 edition -
    an MV [​IMG] Well my MV Holman Christian Standard Bible
    (HCSB) is a modern version and it is the infallible
    written word of God and
    and contains the infallible written word of God.

    And i'm still offended by people who select monikers
    with "AV" in them. But i'm not allowed to tell
    how offensive i find it nor call the people using it
    rehempsiable names for misusing the label "AV".

    As an American and a Baptist i find the AV = Authorized
    Version, an affront to my beliefs.
    In 1762 and 1769 when the KJV was radically altered,
    the real Americans had no use for paying to the
    crown the Bible Tax. These real Americans were
    in open rebellion to the King's tax on Bibles.
    Their were many copies similar to the KJV made
    in the 13 colonies. They were not AVs.
    Real Baptists and real Americans don't like the
    AV label.
     
  17. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    And i'm still offended by people who select monikers
    with "AV" in them. But i'm not allowed to tell
    how offensive i find it nor call the people using it
    rehempsiable names for misusing the label "AV".

    As an American and a Baptist i find the AV = Authorized
    Version, an affront to my beliefs.
    In 1762 and 1769 when the KJV was radically altered,
    the real Americans had no use for paying to the
    crown the Bible Tax. These real Americans were
    in open rebellion to the King's tax on Bibles.
    Their were many copies similar to the KJV made
    in the 13 colonies. They were not AVs.
    Real Baptists and real Americans don't like the
    AV label.

    __________________________________________________

    I guess we'er even Ed, my man. I am offended by people who are offended by a Screen Name on a message board.!!! [​IMG] [​IMG]
    You will notice the offended baptist wavey NEVER uses more than one hand to wave with. [​IMG]
    And I am ALSO offended by Christians who think it is right to overthrow their government because of taxes. Jesus would have said, "Render unto Ceasar..."

    But that is off topic, as you know very well, don't you Ed?

    "Not allowed to tell how offensive I find it..."
    but you did ANYWAY didn't you Ed? ;)

    My, my, my, Whole lotta offense going on here huh?

    ANYBODY FOR FOOTBALL? [​IMG]

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  18. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Ed,
    What is the meaning of "rehempsiable"? I love you man and you crack me up sometimes.By the way I was thinking about getting an HCSB but am waiting for the HCSBAV to come out.
     
  19. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Plain Old Bill: //"What is the meaning of "rehempsiable"? //

    reprehensible

    Plain Old Bill: "By the way I was thinking about getting an HCSB but am waiting for the HCSBAV to come out. "

    I'll write "Authorized Version" on the title page of
    one and send it to you. That will make it a Holman
    Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) AV [​IMG]
    BTW, most editions of the KJV printed in the USofA
    1762 to the present have "Authorized Version
    printed on the title page. However, i think they
    though that GOD authorized the version, cause we
    American & Baptitst sure
    wouldn't be impressed by some British King being
    the authorizer.
     
  20. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    AV Bunyan: Good point - please allow me to clarify. I know many of you folks see the KJV as a reliable version and even call it the word of God and have respect for how God has used it. But you do reject the KJV in a sense that you do not believe it to be infallible as I do.

    Have you ever taken the time to analyze WHY we say it's not infallible? The reason is simple, and can be found right here on this board. The discrepancies and booboos in the KJV have been proven to exist. P-R-O-V-E-N...not just GUESSED AT as most of the KJVO points are.


    You reject the infallible issue. Based upon that you do reject or have doubts - this is what I am referring to.

    When one sees a discrepancy, that's the natural thing for anyone with a lick of common sense to do.


    I personally reject the modern versions as being reliable or being the word of God. This makes me a version rejector. Nothing bad meant towards your character or admiration for the KJV.

    But, unlike us, you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on which to base your claim, except GUESSWORK, FABLES, FISHING STORIES, DOUBLE STANDARDS, and in the case of some people, outright LIES.

    quote:[/QUOTE]Do you go to a dentist that uses only 17th century information and practices as well? [Wink] [/QB]

    If the 17th century information and practices were better, then...yes. [Wink]

    But they're NOT. They treated migraines by trepanning(cutting a hole in the skull to relieve pressure and release the bad 'vapours' & 'humours') and for anesthetic they used a cigar shoved where it was in contact with mucous membranes other than those in the face.

    For that most-highly-developed science, that of warfare, they relied mostly upon theit trusty old swords, same as their ancestors had for over 5000 years. Firearms were almost as dangerous to the user as they were to the enemy.

    The Scripture translators of that day had far fewer sources available than those of today have.

    And the English of then being better than today's? Get real!
     

Share This Page

Loading...