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!

A Chronology of Apostacy

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Nazaroo, Apr 22, 2011.

  1. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, I'd say you've made the same blanket statement in the opposite direction. You have certainly not given any cause to believe let alone proven that any of these men, involved as they were in a criminal act of sabotage and betrayal of the Christian public, were in any sense honest or trustworthy, let alone of the quality to be 'translating' and interpreting the O.T. for Christians.

    Even if they were 'Theists', as you claim, whatever that's worth, has any 'Theist', deist, agnostic, atheist, or even religious Jew any business translating and interpreting a Bible intended for consumption by the trusting Christian public at large?

    These clowns have about as much right to translate the the Bible for the public as a Muslim has the right and credibility to teach Christian history for your children in Sunday school.
     
  2. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    As per the translation of the KJV. Your an Anglican; most of them were Anglicans. I see no difference, except for this one clear difference. I know that those translators were the skilled scholars of their day. They were able and skilled in their chosen fields and gave us a translation that has been acceptable to the majority of the evangelical world for the last 400 years. That is a major accomplishment.

    I would put my trust in the scholarship of those 52 men far quicker than I would in your scholarship, especially after reading your OP. Your OP has many glaring mistakes in it, not to mention that, it is very subjective and biased.
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist


    D.A. Carson is a conservative,Evangelical,Reformed Bible scholar. He is also a well-respected author and preacher.He endorsed the NRSV as a "jolly good piece of work." The closest relative to the ESV is the NRSV --even closer than to the RSV.
     
  4. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    And have you made an accurate and faithful translation into the English language for us peons who cannot eloquently speak the ancient languages. :rolleyes:
     
  5. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    As regarding 'differences', I'd have to see at least a few glaring ones:

    (1) Between the Anglicans of 1600s and those of today.

    The majority of those ancient Anglicans were real men of faith, strongly convinced of the truth of Christianity and the gospel, and some of them even died horrible deaths to uphold their beliefs.

    Anglicans today are a wishy-washy bunch of grotesque liberal agnostics, for whom even the "Christianity" of C.S.Lewis' children's books are a bit too strong. These fags and fruitcakes couldn't put a basic doctrine together on any subject, to save their own lives. And yes, I ought to know, I grew up as a nominal Anglican.

    (2) Between Nazaroo and other modern Anglicans.

    You may be excused from knowing, but I have had to distance myself from fellow-Anglicans over such issues as ordaining homosexuals, approving of gay-marriages, and other foolishness. I consider the Anglican heirarchy apostate at this point. They have removed the Common Book of Prayer, and now also the KJV from the pews, and replaced them with the 'Alternate Services Manual' (without the 39 Articles of Faith!) and The Message (a horrible paraphrase).
    However, I'm an anchronism. I would have been quite at home in 1611, and probably quite satisfied with the KJV had I lived then. But I can't take that position now, with what I know.

    (3) Between Ancient Translators and 'modern translators'

    It must be obvious to anyone that the collective brilliance of the KJV translators, based on a clear understanding, an unshakeable faith, and a good grasp of their mother-tongue, will outshine any group of modern idiots you care to gather together.
    Modern committees like that of the UBS (Aland, Metzger, Nestle, Cardinal Martino) are a joke in comparison, and couldn't shine the shoes of the Authorized Version Committees. These open heretics and doubters are about as useful to God as a Jehovah's Witless pamphlet.

    As for Metzger's blasphemous abomination called the RSV/NRSV, that 'thing' should be burned along with the Koran and your Beatle records.



    We are in total agreement here, and I'll answer your other post in advance:

    I couldn't possibly make a decent, powerful, accurate, and useful translation of the New Testament acceptable to the body of Christ and suitable for adopting in any public services, or study. At best I could offer a few personal notes regarding what I believe the Lord has shown me, and for which I am grateful.
    But I think it is the height of academic arrogance, not just for me, but for any motley crew of university philosophers, to think they could be worthy of translating, let alone editing, God's Holy Scriptures.
    I'll settle for what God has given: The Authorized Version, and the wonderful printed copies of the traditional Greek text, and Hebrew OT available to anyone.

    Don't confuse me with modern 'translators'. Hang onto your traditional texts.


    peace
    Nazaroo
     
  6. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    No useful translation acceptable to the body of Christ??
    At best you could offer a few personal notes??

    Then why the arrogant statement which is totally inaccurate, if not a total lie:

    "I don't use the KJV myself, except for reference,
    since I read Greek and Hebrew."

    You admit you use the KJV and yet you denied it previously, why? That is totally deceitful.
    I never did. You come across as KJVO, even if you are not.
     
  7. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its a factual statement. I don't see how truth can be arrogant.
    I do make occasional facetious statements, or jokes,
    and use hyperbole or irony liberally.
    Don't mistake that for arrogance.
    I also make arrogant statements occasionally.
    Catch me if you can.

    You're confused.
    I didn't deny using the KJV.
    I said clearly "except for reference".
    Your reading comprehension is typical.

    As I explained previously, I don't rely upon my own translations
    in debate or instruction. No one would listen anyway.
    I use the KJV when dealing with idiots, of which there are legion.
     
  8. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Let's try this again. I am not confused. My reading comprehension is just fine. Look again at what you posted:

    "I don't use the KJV myself, except for reference,
    since I read Greek and Hebrew."

    You clearly say "I don't use the KJV...except for reference."
    You also said that you are not able to make a suitable reference.
    That leaves you with what?--the KJV!!
    You state above that you don't rely upon your own translations.
    You again state that you use the KJV when dealing with others.

    You have no fluency in the ancient languages; you can only use them for reference. Isn't that the truth?? So you have misrepresented yourself. Your quote above is actually a lie. You use the KJV, and then you use the Greek and Hebrew for reference. That is a more accurate statement, isn't it?
    Why not be honest with yourself and with others.
     
  9. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    9,025
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian

    GE:

    'These clowns' had as much right to translate the Bible as any confessing Christian has. And it was the best thing that ever could happen, for an unbiased appreciation of the Scriptures that it SURVIVED UNSCATHED.

    Thank God for the atheists and theists and the whole caboodle with real knowledge and skill to apply that knowledge. The Word of God need fear NOTHING!
     
  10. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your 'logic' may appear impeccable to you,
    but its wrong.
    You edit my statements to make them more universal
    and say more than I originally said.

    "I don't use the KJV myself, except for reference."

    ...is straightforward.
    But I'm happy to elaborate and fill it out more.
    I prefer reading the Greek NT, which I read alot,
    regularly, and I also tend to write in Greek.

    My skills in Greek are good enough for my own purposes.
    I don't presume to be able to translate the NT for others,
    nor do I expect them to accept my translations on their own.
    If I were to defend a particular interpretation or rendering,
    I would do so using independent evidences, like usage in other documents,
    or the opinions of other scholars.
    Not that I have any respect for them, but the assumption would be,
    that others whom I would be trying to convince would.

    When arguing and debating with others, in English,
    I would naturally use the KJV
    (which they would recognise and respect),
    not my own translations, although I have no hesitation in
    making slight modifications to any quotation to better express
    in modern language the meaning and intent of the original,
    and also the intent of the KJV translators.

    My own personal preference in English translations available
    to the public is Young's Literal version. Not because its great,
    but because relatively speaking, its better than most modern
    versions, particularly with regard to the text used (TR).

    I don't need the KJV or YLT or any other version.
    I'm quite comfortable reading the NT in Greek for myself.
    Since this is just a personal story of my personal preferences,
    I don't see how it is even relevant to the discussion.



    No. You are making blanket statements about my statements.
    But who cares?
    I very much DO rely upon my own translations, for myself.
    Its just that I don't care to share them with others,
    or expect others to rely upon my translations.
    What part of that is unintelligible to you?


    This extreme language is false and also very wrong.
    Resorting to name-calling, especially accusations such as this,
    is totally inappropriate and uncalled for.
    You are the one distorting my statements.
    You are the one then who would be 'lying',
    that is knowingly and actively changing truths to suit your purpose.


    This isn't a question of 'honesty',
    its a question of meaning of language,
    which we all know is not easy to solve.

    What do you mean by "for reference"?
    I know what I mean.
    I use the KJV for reference,
    meaning I check my understanding of Greek passages,
    when I am in doubt or curious, by looking at what others have done.
    I almost never correct my own translations or understandings
    to conform to the KJV, or any other translation.
    I use them 'for reference', meaning to assist my own thoughts,
    for clarity of expression in English, and a variety of other purposes,
    like examining textual variants.

    But I work most in Greek when dealing with the NT.

    On the other hand, I appreciate Dictionaries, Grammars,
    and Lexicons, as well as commentaries, and other publications.
    I use them for reference.

    None of my statements is "more accurate" or "more honest"
    than any other statement.
    They are all accurate and honest representations
    in my own words of what I do.
     
    #30 Nazaroo, May 1, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2011
  11. Nazaroo

    Nazaroo New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    0
    "These clowns" have the right to translate the bible for themselves alone, not others.

    No one has the right to edit the NT text, deleting some 200 whole and half-verses from it. That is an assault upon the word of God.
     
Loading...