Why does it matter....

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Kathy, Dec 1, 2001.

  1. Kathy

    Kathy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    For the KJVO's, why does it matter if a person/preacher/teacher wants to refer back to Greek & Hebrew text? Even with the KJV, I have gained a better knowledge by "going back to the Greek". I'm not trying to debate cuz I don't know enough about the whole issue, but why do some KJVO's feel this way? Curious...

    Kathy
    <><
     
  2. Alex Mullins

    Alex Mullins
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2001
    Messages:
    102
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't want to get anyone riled up here but the whole KJV only issue is a matter of perspective and a sincere belief that God would could and did preserve His word, perfect for us in the English language to be used today.

    There is nothing in the KJV or any of the modern versions that will confirm that KJV is THE perfect word, but His perfect says that He will preserve His word , perfect, from generation to generation. It is, then, entirely up to us to determine where it is and that is not too difficult to determine. Simply go to the one pure word, the KJV, which mankind has been trying to destroy for centuries. The argument today is that it is too hard to read.

    When studying the historical facts and proving that mankind has been re-writing and butchering the Word since the Garden of Eden it is the only logical conclusion to be reached. It is, clearly, a matter of inspiration and PRESERVATION.

    Three quick questions:

    1. Why would God go to the trouble of inspiring Holy men to write 66 books over a 1600 year period and then, not preserve it?

    2. Why would he not want us to have the best, the sharpest sword, the finest steel, His pure preserved Word, to fight the battle that is raging around us and within us today.

    2. Why would Satan just overlook the re-writing of Gods word by making men believe it is just too hard to read, creating all manner of doubt in our minds, that He is able to preserve this precious word? Why?

    Mankind, not sure of the truth, goes back to the Greek and the Hebrew to, perhaps, get a clearer perspective of a point or topic he is studying. Likewise, mankind goes to writings like concordances and bible dictionaries to obtain a clearer view of a topic or an idea that God has laid on his heart.

    The modern versions are nothing more than concordances, man's view twisted by satan and corrupted by such as the Catholic Church over the centuries in an effort to keep the pure gospel away from mankind.

    This is the "logical conclusion" I have reached after years of study and comparison of the version. It is more than a feeling. All bibles on the market today are different in too many ways from the AV. Key words changed, entire verses deleted, the basic doctrines of our faith weakened. One thing is certain. satan has convinced them that they are, definetely, easier to read.

    The modern versions have evolved from corrupt manuscripts. They contain some of God's word, for sure. The KJV has stood the test of time. It IS God's pure word. He did not expect all of us to be Greek/Hebrew scholars.

    This precious word is with us, to read any time we want in our language. Men say it is too difficult to read and must be re-written at the rate of once every two years since 1945. This is a lie of satan himself.

    Bible schools are cranking out new, young Pastors and bible scholars in record numbers, all believing that anything with the word "Bible" on it is God's Word.

    This precious KJV is worth defending.

    Note that I have said all of this without making any personal attacks.

    I would urge all of those who disagree with this KJV only'er to check out the history books and arrive a their own logical conclusion.

    If anyone can provide an easy to understand answer to the above three simple questions, in a civilized and friendly manner, I would like to hear from you. If you are unable to keep it civil, please leave me alone to wallow in my belief that we have a God who is able to do that which is perfect, and has done so in the KJV.

    Thank you and God bless you as you seek His truth.

    Alex
     
  3. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex Mullins:
    Don't want to get anyone riled up here but the whole KJV only issue is a matter of perspective and a sincere belief that God would could and did preserve His word, perfect for us in the English language to be used today.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Well, Alex, ain't nobody riled up here just discussin' if that's okay with you.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    There is nothing in the KJV or any of the modern versions that will confirm that KJV is THE perfect word, but His perfect says that He will preserve His word , perfect, from generation to generation. It is, then, entirely up to us to determine where it is and that is not too difficult to determine. Simply go to the one pure word, the KJV, which mankind has been trying to destroy for centuries. The argument today is that it is too hard to read.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    AMEN!

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    When studying the historical facts and proving that mankind has been re-writing and butchering the Word since the Garden of Eden it is the only logical conclusion to be reached. It is, clearly, a matter of inspiration and PRESERVATION.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Just what historical facts are you referring to, specifically. It is my understanding there was no Bible books available to anybody until Moses wrote the Pentateuch many, many years after the earth was repopulated and the Jews left the great (secular sense) country of Egypt.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    Three quick questions:
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


    Okay

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    1. Why would God go to the trouble of inspiring Holy men to write 66 books over a 1600 year period and then, not preserve it?
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Oh, He did preserve it, He said he did. It can be found in many translations, in many languages so that people around the world can understand it, including Russian, Persian, Arabic, Indonesian, Chinese, Japanese, etc. etc. Do you believe that a person cannot read the Word of God unless he learns Old English?

    Do not say that as long as it is translated from the KJ it is okay, that won't cut it. Why? Because EVERY language has different grammar and syntax and it is impossible to translate word for word from one language to another without changes in the writing. It would be like us reading an intralinear Greek Bible---which according to your theory is probably more accurate than the KJV.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    2. Why would he not want us to have the best, the sharpest sword, the finest steel, His pure preserved Word, to fight the battle that is raging around us and within us today.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    This is EXACTLY why it is our duty to have the best scholars in the world go over every s**** of manuscript found to determine its date and compare it with all the others to make sure that we keep the doctrine as pure as possible. All of the standard translations have maintained doctrine very well and making statements that they are "watered down" is simply a cop-out. We can say so many of this word was taken out and so many of that word, but a good MV will use a word or phrase that is more meaningful to us today than the old English. Besides, the KJV has errors. Are you saying that the KJV has corrected errors in the texts as it was translated?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    2. Why would Satan just overlook the re-writing of Gods word by making men believe it is just too hard to read, creating all manner of doubt in our minds, that He is able to preserve this precious word? Why?
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    He obviously has in some BAD translations of the past, but the mainstream translations were translated to be as accurate as possible to the original Greek and Hebrew where the only true perfect individual words exist. Since we have lost those, it is up to us to discover which documents are closest to the originals. For example the KJV used 12 different manuscripts all of which were not matching to come up with the book of Revelation. Some of it was guess-work.
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    Mankind, not sure of the truth, goes back to the Greek and the Hebrew to, perhaps, get a clearer perspective of a point or topic he is studying. Likewise, mankind goes to writings like concordances and bible dictionaries to obtain a clearer view of a topic or an idea that God has laid on his heart.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Specifically, which particular Greek or Hebrew manuscript do you refer to. If you are referring to a concordance or dictionary which manuscript stream did it come from?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    The modern versions are nothing more than concordances, man's view twisted by satan and corrupted by such as the Catholic Church over the centuries in an effort to keep the pure gospel away from mankind.

    This is the "logical conclusion" I have reached after years of study and comparison of the version. It is more than a feeling. All bibles on the market today are different in too many ways from the AV. Key words changed, entire verses deleted, the basic doctrines of our faith weakened. One thing is certain. satan has convinced them that they are, definetely, easier to read.

    The modern versions have evolved from corrupt manuscripts. They contain some of God's word, for sure. The KJV has stood the test of time. It IS God's pure word. He did not expect all of us to be Greek/Hebrew scholars.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    The test of time -- what let's see 1769 from 2001. That's less time than the Roman empire existed. Hmmmmmmmm! That's really not very long. My 25 to 30 years of study has led me to believe the mainstream translations are quite accurate in maintaining the doctrine of God and his Son Christ and the salvation he brought to us through Grace.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    This precious word is with us, to read any time we want in our language. Men say it is too difficult to read and must be re-written at the rate of once every two years since 1945. This is a lie of satan himself.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Well, it is pretty difficult to read; especially for people who did not grow up reading it. I can give you a pretty long list of words that mean something totally different than what you think they do. I don't think the number of years between versions is as significant as keeping up with the latest textual scholarship and specific changes in our modern English which DOES change with time.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    Bible schools are cranking out new, young Pastors and bible scholars in record numbers, all believing that anything with the word "Bible" on it is God's Word.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


    This is a broad sweeping remark that anything with "Bible" on it is God's Word. I consider that simply your opinion.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    This precious KJV is worth defending.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


    No argument here. I like the KJV and think it is a good translation. But, I also like the NASB and will probably like the ESV (after I complete my study on its accuracy.)

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    Note that I have said all of this without making any personal attacks.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    No attacks here, just a Christian discussing theological differences with another Christian.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    I would urge all of those who disagree with this KJV only'er to check out the history books and arrive a their own logical conclusion.

    If anyone can provide an easy to understand answer to the above three simple questions, in a civilized and friendly manner, I would like to hear from you. If you are unable to keep it civil, please leave me alone to wallow in my belief that we have a God who is able to do that which is perfect, and has done so in the KJV.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Well, I hope I haven't offended you, I have just tried to give my basis for my beliefs--that's all. After all, I think we are all going to be quite surprised when we stand before God at all the things we don't understand in this limited human body, with the limited knowledge he has left us with (not complaining, as long as it provides the grace for eternal life---I'll get the answers soon enough.)

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    Thank you and God bless you as you seek His truth.

    Alex
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    God bless you too and again I hope my answers do not offend you, they are based strictly on my studies and the studies of some good scholars who have helped point me in the direction to find what I believe is the truth myself. You have just as much right to your opinion and we can still be brother's in Christ as long as we both believe Jesus died for us on the cross and that HE is the everlasting Son of God who was present at the creation.
     
  4. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex Mullins:


    Three quick questions:

    1. Why would God go to the trouble of inspiring Holy men to write 66 books over a 1600 year period and then, not preserve it?
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> God did preserve His Word and we have over 5,000 mss and 20,000+ supporting witnesses and ancient versions that confirm this truth. You cannot confuse "Word" with "words" and properly decide this issue. If you are looking for preserved "words" then by necessity we must select the perfectly preserved mss and learn the languages they were written in. This is a profound problem in that, up until the printing press, all Bibles were hand copied and contained "human" copying errors. If you recognize the truth that God's Word is not dependent on a particular set of English words then you have a logical starting point.

    Here's a question for you. If your understanding of preservation is correct, did God violate His promise during the period between the originals and the printing press considering the fact that all of the hand copies were different in some large or small way from the others?

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Why would he not want us to have the best, the sharpest sword, the finest steel, His pure preserved Word, to fight the battle that is raging around us and within us today.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He did. We do...also the better we understand His Word and the more closely our Bible represents the originals the more effectively we can use it in battle.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Why would Satan just overlook the re-writing of Gods word by making men believe it is just too hard to read, creating all manner of doubt in our minds, that He is able to preserve this precious word? Why?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The answer is that I cannot think for Satan. However, it is just as valid to ask "Wouldn't Satan want to prevent updated English translations so that as the language changes people could not understand it and therefore become discouraged?

    God did preserve His Word. He just did not do it in the manner that you demand.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mankind, not sure of the truth, goes back to the Greek and the Hebrew to, perhaps, get a clearer perspective of a point or topic he is studying. Likewise, mankind goes to writings like concordances and bible dictionaries to obtain a clearer view of a topic or an idea that God has laid on his heart.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A Spirit-filled believer will pray for guidance and study (work) to know the Word of God. We are blessed with tremendous tools. It is not a lack of godliness or faith to use them.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The modern versions are nothing more than concordances, man's view twisted by satan and corrupted by such as the Catholic Church over the centuries in an effort to keep the pure gospel away from mankind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is nothing more than a false statement based on a manmade doctrine (KJVOnlyism) which will , if successful in keeping an understandable translation of the Bible from people, result in a perversion of the Gospel. Many historic Catholic abuses and errors were largely the result their preventing people from reading the Bible for themselves in their own language.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is the "logical conclusion" I have reached after years of study and comparison of the version. It is more than a feeling. All bibles on the market today are different in too many ways from the AV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Within two sentences, you have disproven the claim of your first sentence. If you start with the AV as the standard then you begin with the "illogical conclusion". No amount of study or comparison can lead you to any conclusion except that all other Bibles (before or after 1611) are different from the AV...which means nothing except that you believe what you believe because you want to regardless of the facts.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Key words changed, entire verses deleted, the basic doctrines of our faith weakened.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This argument has been refuted over and over on this board. Yet it keeps getting repeated without any proof or reasoning.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The modern versions have evolved from corrupt manuscripts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The MVs have descended from a scholarly study of the available evidence for what the originals most likely said. A common lie is that they are based on two Egyptian mss. They are actually based on 1,000's of mss and other documents from all over the ancient world. The AV is based largely on the TR, other English versions, and the Latin Vulgate. By comparison, the evidence used was less and more subject to Catholic influence

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He did not expect all of us to be Greek/Hebrew scholars.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nor did He expect us to learn Elizabethan English or be confused by words like "conversation", "let", and "Ghost".

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Men say it is too difficult to read and must be re-written at the rate of once every two years since 1945. This is a lie of satan himself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Men also say: 1-that all of the legitimate evidence needed to produce the perfect English Bible was available to a group of Anglican scholars in 1611, 2-that God providentially guided this group of men (some of whom persecuted other Christians) to make the perfect decisions on every choice. 3-that no attempt should be made to more accurately present what the originals said regardless of changes in the English language or new discoveries concerning the Bible.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bible schools are cranking out new, young Pastors and bible scholars in record numbers, all believing that anything with the word "Bible" on it is God's Word. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a dishonest exaggeration.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This precious KJV is worth defending...I would urge all of those who disagree with this KJV only'er to check out the history books and arrive a their own logical conclusion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have. Starting from the biblically/historically sound premises that the originals were perfect, that the Word is preserved in a multitude of mss that are all imperfect, and that the goal of textual criticism or translation is to represent the originals as closely as possible, I have concluded that the KJVO position is not supported by any fact or piece of evidence which is properly handled.

    God bless you. I hope I have not been to antagonistic. That was not my intention.
     
  5. Kathy

    Kathy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, it seems my very simply question has been overshadowed. All I want to know is why is it a problem to look at Greek and Hebrew texts?

    Kathy
    &lt;&gt;&lt;
     
  6. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    Dear Kathy,

    From my perspective, there is nothing at all wrong with looking at the Greek and Hebrew.
    Just as it is helpful to study the culture and times of the Bible.
    Jesus spoke about jots and tittles (Hebrew) not passing away from the Law (Torah) not "i"'s and their dots.

    However some KJVO folk believe that the KJV English words now supercede and are superior to the Greek and Hebrew.

    HankD

    [ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  7. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kathy:
    Well, it seems my very simply question has been overshadowed. All I want to know is why is it a problem to look at Greek and Hebrew texts?

    Kathy
    &lt;&gt;&lt;
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    haha, no joke.

    No, there is nothing wrong with the Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic for Matthew and Job). But, just be aware that as mentioned earlier there are thousands of bits of manuscripts out there. Most of them agree totally, but there are a few non-doctrinal differences based on the sources and dates. So, just be aware, just because you have a Hebrew or Greek Bible or Concordance or Lexicon does not necessarily tell you specially what manuscripts it is based on unless you are familiar with the manuscripts available. There are several standards that were created through the use of textual criticism and a lot of these are "blasted" by KJVO's simply because an author may have not been a good Christian or wasn't even a Christian. God can use anybody to preserve his word. I will say there is NOTHING like reading his word in its original language to get a REAL feel for what was meant. I would suggest learning Greek since it takes care of most of the New Testament and it is MUCH, MUCH easier to learn (or at least for me) than Hebrew and remember that the Hebrew used in most texts is Mesoretic Hebrew which was created to add vowels to words without vowels (see how hard it was to translate the early ones). This was accomplished some 3 or 4 hundred years AFTER Christ. Just a little trivia here. :D
     
  8. Ernie Brazee

    Ernie Brazee
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="/ernie.JPG">

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2001
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well said Alex, but alas, the truth you spoke will fall on deaf ears, just as the Words Jesus spoke to the religious leaders of His day. Natural man will not receive God's truth. The KJV is hard for some to understand because they don't have the Holy Spirit to guide them. If they did they would love God's Holy Word given to us in the KJV.. They cling to the new versions and deny themselves the power that comes from the living Word. Oh that they could experience the blessing from hearing with ones heart God speaking through the written Word. The dead versions don't offer this. This is why so many today deny other truths, they haven't experienced the power of God in their dead books.

    Ernie
     
  9. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ernie Brazee:
    Well said Alex, but alas, the truth you spoke will fall on deaf ears, just as the Words Jesus spoke to the religious leaders of His day. Natural man will not receive God's truth. The KJV is hard for some to understand because they don't have the Holy Spirit to guide them. If they did they would love God's Holy Word given to us in the KJV.. They cling to the new versions and deny themselves the power that comes from the living Word. Oh that they could experience the blessing from hearing with ones heart God speaking through the written Word. The dead versions don't offer this. This is why so many today deny other truths, they haven't experienced the power of God in their dead books.

    Ernie
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Rarely have I read such garbage and ad hominem accusation from a "Christian". You have stated:

    <UL TYPE=SQUARE>1.Believers who use and trust modern versions have deaf ears and are comparable to scribes and pharisees (despite the fact that KJVOs like you are the legalists)
    2. Modern version users are "natural men", i.e., unregenerate unbelievers.
    3. MV users do not possess the Holy Spirit, therefore are not Christians.
    4. Being a Christian requires one to love the KJV, a translation, instead of God's Word in all translatons.
    5. MV users deny the power of God's word.
    6. Perhaps worst of all, you blaspheme God by calling His word in MVs "dead".[/list]

    This is reprehensible in the least. You owe an apology to all believers who use MVs, and you need to turn in repentance for your sin against God. :mad:

    You have preached a false works gospel, Christ PLUS use the KJV, and stand under the anathema of Galatians 1:8,9.

    Future garbage like this will be deleted.
     
  10. Brian

    Brian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm going to draw a quick correlation here then bow out.
    We bandy terms like 'legalist' and 'liberal' quite easily and in so doing loose track of IMO the issues.
    For us to be truly like Jesus we need to learn OT Hebrew as our first language and NT Greek as a close second and use the texts that Jesus himself quoted from.
    To be able to read fluently in the original language would be the best way to 'truly understand the exact meaning'.

    Since for me this is highly improbable I use the KJV.

    I said that to say this . In Jesus' time the scribes and pharisees and them were using the Law to thier own purpose.

    We all know this.

    What we forget is that they were the religious mainstream of thier time. And obviously they were wrong but could quote scripture literally all day to back themselves up.

    To me when Jesus preached that 'strait is the gate and narrow is the way and few that enter in there at' He was telling us that the majority is seldom right.

    The current state of things in the religious community put those that suscribe to the KJV in the minority.

    So in my mind the correlation is this. MVists state that MVs Are better because so many use it to 'better' determine what God really means. This is following the thought of the leagalists of Jesus' day.
    I don't belive that anyone here claims that the KJV is a poor translation just that there are some that are 'better'.

    The KJV is a true version of Gods word and for me the only one I will trust as final authority.
     
  11. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
    So in my mind the correlation is this. MVists state that MVs Are better because so many use it to 'better' determine what God really means. This is following the thought of the leagalists of Jesus' day.
    I don't belive that anyone here claims that the KJV is a poor translation just that there are some that are 'better'.

    The KJV is a true version of Gods word and for me the only one I will trust as final authority.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Brian:

    If you use and love the KJV because you think its the best translation, no one has a beef with you. If anyone says it is the ONLY word of God and all else are "dead books" or versions from Satan they are accountable before God for their false teaching.

    When you say "MVists state that MVs Are better because so many use it to 'better' determine what God really means. This is following the thought of the leagalists of Jesus' day", it is non sequiter. MV users believe that reliable MVs (ESV, NASB, NKJV and others) are more accurate than the ancient KJV and are in today's readable language. This was the goal of Tyndale in translating the Bible into every man's English.

    The KJV is archaic and out of date in both translation accuracy and readability. This was recognized in the 18th and 19th centuries; how much more so in the 21st?

    [ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]
     
  12. Kathy

    Kathy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    To HankD & Phillip!

    I humbly curtsey to you both! Thank you both for your thoughtful answers...I really do appreciate them!

    God bless!

    Kathy
    &lt;&gt;&lt;
     
  13. John Wells

    John Wells
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't forget to thank Ernie who reminds us by way of demonstration that there are cultists out there!

    Chris Temple . . . right on, brother! ;)
     
  14. paul hadik

    paul hadik
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2001
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    0
    if it will make y'all feel any better. Out here on the island of Kosrae, the first kosraean language bible was written in the early 1920's (translated not from the Greek but from the English) In the ensuing 80 years, kosraean language has changed greatly as has the spelling. The Bible now is almost completely unreadable in the local tongue. A push to update the translation is being vigourously opposed by the island pastors who hate to see tradition violated for something new.
    In an interesting sidelight some mission boards out here have insisted that their missionaries use only the KJV when studying.
    So missionaries now have a dubious choice: use an English version that no English as a 2nd language Kosraean can understand or use the Kosraean language bible that no Kosraean can understand.
    Somewhere Satan is having a good giggle over all this foolishness.
    I find it pathetic.
     
  15. superdave

    superdave
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kathy,
    To answer your question, and not get into a silly argument over the "Modern" versions

    A preacher who chooses to not use the original languages IMHO, is choosing to remain ignorant. It is important to learn the original languages, because the Bible was originally written in those languages and even Functional Equivilent translations do not always convey the full detailed meaning in the text.

    The KJV is a good version, don't mistake what I am saying. But those who hold to it solely and believe that studying the ancient languages it was translated from is somehow a lack of faith, are really not focused on the right things.
     
  16. ventin

    ventin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2001
    Messages:
    180
    Likes Received:
    0
    i think u all have miss the whole point of the KJV issue... it is not so much of how it is translated but the source of its translation.

    So Kathy, even if u go back and study the Greek and the Hebrew, pls look for the Textus Receptus text and not those by Westcort and Hort.
    MV came from this corrupted source which is why i reject all the other versions.
     
  17. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ventin:
    i think u all have miss the whole point of the KJV issue... it is not so much of how it is translated but the source of its translation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Translation debates should be about textual issues and the English style of translation of those texts. But even if one believes the KJV texts to be the best available, better translations in modern English are available, such as the NKJV, MKJV and the LITV. So KJ Onlyism falls unless one believes the very English words of the KJV to be inspired.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So Kathy, even if u go back and study the Greek and the Hebrew, pls look for the Textus Receptus text and not those by Westcort and Hort.
    MV came from this corrupted source which is why i reject all the other versions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    But KJVOs reject the NKJV because it is not the KJV.

    [ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]
     
  18. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
    Translation debates should be about textual issues and the English style of translation of those texts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But even if one believes the KJV texts to be the best available, better translations in modern English are available . . .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The word "better" is entirely subjective. You may use a different criteria to determine what is "better" than I would. You may consider contemporary usage of words while I would consider faithful transmission of Greek case, number, and tense. To say, categorically, that one English version is "better" than another is to make a subjective evaluation and raise it to the level of fiat. It sounds much like the assertion that Aleph and B are the "best" manuscripts, or even the wild assertions of some of the more radical of the KJVOs! [​IMG]

    [ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
     
  19. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
    The word "better" is entirely subjective. You may use a different criteria to determine what is "better" than I would. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I am using the term better as measured against objective criteria.

    1. Presented in modern, understandable yet respectable English.
    2. More accurate in keeping with linguistic studies of the past 400 years.

    There can be little doubt that the NKJV translates in more understandable English than the KJV, and it corrects translation errors of the KJV.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> To say, categorically, that one English version is "better" than another is to make a subjective evaluation and raise it to the level of fiat. It sounds much like the assertion that Aleph and B are the "best" manuscripts, or even the wild assertions of some of the more radical of the KJVOs! [​IMG]
    [ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Not quite!

    [ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]
     
  20. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
    1. Presented in modern, understandable yet respectable English.
    2. More accurate in keeping with linguistic studies of the past 400 years.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But, "understandable" is in the eye of the beholder, and is thus subjective. I can "understand" from my KJV that the pronouns in Greek are singular or plural, and that verb tenses are first, second, or third person. I cannot "understand" that from the NKJV, so, by using "objective" criteria I can say the KJV is "better" than the NKJV. See the problem? [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...