1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What difference does 270 years make?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Precepts, Feb 27, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 5 of 5
  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    RSV, AV, NASB, NIV, ECC - all these developed during the era of the KJV. Wonder why?

    Of course these, including the KJV, are not "doctrinal developments". That is absurd. When we think of DOCTRINE and its impact, we think of the Reformation and the 100 years BEFORE the AV1611. Hello?
     
    #81 Dr. Bob, Feb 29, 2004
  2. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Precepts
    "I <know> very little about the Quatrain and the Willibrord,"
    A quatrain is a poetic form, like a limerick.
    Willibrord is the Dutch saint Patrick.
    http://www.nostradamusresearch.org/en/research%20results/functions%20Bible.htm
    This is a website that links the 2 concepts to the writings of Nostradamus and the Bible.
    Interesting detail the other Bible (the NBG) mentioned on the site is the one used in my church.
     
    #82 mioque, Feb 29, 2004
  3. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "If you know your Bible history, you will have to admit the Puritans were the ones to intiate the 1611."
    In a sense.The Puritans were the driving force behind the Geneva Bible and enemies of the KJB.

    "So why would anyone object to the Bible God had given to the common folk?"
    Actually the AV is originally an elitist Bible translated to support the interests of king James.

    "Is it a confession of ignorance to believe the KJB is so hard to understand?"
    I have on one of my bookshelfs, trust me it is quite complex to those not extensively trained in it's use.
     
    #83 mioque, Feb 29, 2004
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Sister Mioque -- Preach it! [​IMG]
     
    #84 Ed Edwards, Feb 29, 2004
  5. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Will you aklso promote the "not to my taste" thinking as the general rule to understanding the Bible?"
    No, but I will promote it as a factor in choosing once Bibleversion.

    "Have I ever said that anyone should not have the Bible in their native tongue?"
    I have no idea, I don't know you all that well.

    "How is it the KJB trnaslated into anyone's native tongue is denying them the Bible written in their own language?"
    The AV translators also didn't translate from the Vulgate, they used texts written in the original tongues to get the best results. It is about having the best translation possible. Also a translation from the KJB will never have equall standing to the KJB itself. Giving the English speaking KJVO types of this world a bit of prestige I'll happily deny them if at all possible.

    "Now, if we want to understand medicine, we are left with no alternative but to learn Latin, so by that reasoning, if we want to understand the Bible, we need to know the English of the KJB."
    If we want to understand all the in's and outs of the Bible perfectly we must learn 3 dead languages...
     
    #85 mioque, Feb 29, 2004
  6. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Precepts:How is it the KJB trnaslated into anyone's native tongue is denying them the Bible written in their own language? That is STUPENDOUS to think that!

    Actually, it's rather silly to translate a translation when the sources from which the first translation was made are available. The poor renderings from the KJV would be carried over into the new translation. Why not make the translation from the ancient mss? Just because a particular translator knows English and Slobbovian doesn't mean he/she should render an English translation into Slobbovian except as an on-the-spot thing. For a WRITTEN version, find someone who knows the Scriptural written lingo and Slobbovian, for a DIRECT translation. Yould YOU wanna give up your direct Greek/Hebrew translations for an English translation of, say, the Luther Bible?
     
    #86 robycop3, Feb 29, 2004
  7. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    At least you said "them".

    Why do we need to learn three dead languages when we already know the "ins and outs" of the Bible in English? Yall are trying persistently to convince people they must learn these three dead languages to understand modern versions, that's ridiculous! The yall have to attack the KJB to try and prove your point when you really had no point atall in trying to make the KJB "mistaken or wrong", that too is ridiculous! Now you're trying to say that the KJB translated into another language won't have the same standing as the KJB itself, How's that? If it says the same thing how is it wrong and not having the same standing? That too is utterly ridiculous!

    Yall are all talking in circles when all anyone has to do is read the KJB and any other Bible translated from the KJB to understand what the Lord has to say to them, but we already know that isn't the case with the "famous and best" NasV.

    Translate the NasV into the Dutch and you will still come up with the same errors as in the English... and the monkey chased the weasel.
     
    #87 Precepts, Feb 29, 2004
  8. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cranston, What "poor renderings" from the KJB? I haven't seen one yall have propigated as to justify a "poor rendering" yet. Alot of opinion espoused, but nothing is still nothing, in any language. So go back to the "best" Greek MSS and tell us all what "nothing" really means in modern English.
     
    #88 Precepts, Feb 29, 2004
  9. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,851
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why would anyone want to translate the New American Standard into another language? That would, indeed, be a monkey chasing a weasel.
     
    #89 rsr, Feb 29, 2004
  10. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, rsr, you're wrong, the weasel would be chasing the monkey then, and God might reach out of the mulberry bush and pop the monkey for the weasel.
     
    #90 Precepts, Feb 29, 2004
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The poor KJV renderings have been repeatedly posted, Precepts, but you refuse to see the plain evidence. But let's give just one example-THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
     
    #91 robycop3, Mar 1, 2004
  12. Orvie

    Orvie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shall I say it again? He loves pickles, i.e. he believes that God has pickled His precious Holy Word in the KJV:kjb. He refuses to acknowledge his sword is rusty (Heb 4:12), as far as the modern reader is concern. He'd rather have the Bible say, "Balaam's ass" instead of his donkey, he'd rather have the Bible say, "he that pisseth against the wall", instead of "urinates" or "male", he'd rather the living creatures in Revelation be called the same thing as the anti-christ, "beast", instead of the way MV's clarify the confusion by using the same word as the KJV OT "living creatures" (that's what I mean by "rusty sword"). More examples of rustiness given upon request.
     
    #92 Orvie, Mar 1, 2004
  13. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Why do we need to learn three dead languages when we already know the "ins and outs" of the Bible in English?"
    We already know those "ins and outs" of the Bible in Dutch. We want to maintain that standard and that means going back to the original languages for each new translation.
     
    #93 mioque, Mar 1, 2004
  14. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    But that is the best possible rendering of "ratsach." To render that as "You shall not murder" would exclude the lesser included offense of manslaughter which "ratsach" includes. The root means "to dash in pieces" and includes both accidental and deliberate acts. [​IMG]
     
    #94 skanwmatos, Mar 1, 2004
  15. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skan I don't know how anyone "accidently" dashes another in pieces, do you? Now when you take into consideration accidentally "killing" someone and they get dashed into pieces by say a lawn mower, that could apply. But the aspect of "Thou shalt not kill " is readily understood as to kill without due reason, justifiable homocide is not "killing". "Kill" is a violent act, "murder" is best associated with "kill", but our English has altered the root meaning of kill to be to cause loss of life.

    The aspect of violating the law of "Thou shalt not kill" is dealt with in Leviticus rather extensively so that no misunderstanding is actually permitted.

    "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"
     
    #95 Precepts, Mar 1, 2004
  16. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I have seen it quite often, most notably in automobile accidents.
    That is exactly what I said. The Hebrew word includes murder and manslaughter; one deliberate, the other accidental.
    Yes, and for those who violate the law by accidentally killing a person was still guilty under the law, but was allowed to flee to the cities of refuge and be safe from vengeance by the family.
    Ignorance of the bible is no excuse either. [​IMG]
     
    #96 skanwmatos, Mar 3, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 5 of 5
Loading...