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 proposal

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by TomVols, Apr 26, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I hate the KJVO lie as much as the next guy around here but I think if any policy needs to be changed around here, it is to give the KJVO people a little more breathing room. KJVO supporters get shut down pretty quickly around here.

    Anyone who has engaged a KJVO person knows how easy it is for them to argue themselves into a corner. I think what needs to happen around here is for the anti-KJVO crowd to show a little grace and gently guide these misguided souls with information but also with compassion. Many of us claim to be former KJVO and I think it is important to remember what helped us see the error of our ways. Was it someone engaging you in a war of words or was it a more gentle and gradual change?

    Of course there are those who are vitriolic in their views, but hopefully with maturity we can learn to ignore their inciteful words and address their views with good clear information but also with grace and understanding
     
  2. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gold Dragon

    I am sure you meant that post to be nice, but it was an insult in disguise. Calling people "misguided" is strictly your opinion. No one is able to prove that being KJVO is wrong. There is not a person on earth who has the original autographs, and the texts used for both the KJV and the MVs were copies. Even if the texts the KJV translators used were available (which they are not being destroyed in a fire), those were copies.

    Also, there have been many people who were against KJVO that came to accept this belief, Pastor D. A. Waite being one of them. He has been a Baptist pastor for nearly 60 years. For the first 20 years of his ministry he accepted the W-H texts as that was taught him at Dallas Theological Seminary. But through study he came to believe the KJV the only accurate translation in English and has spent the last 40 years defending it. That is his own testimony you can find at his site.

    http://www.biblefortoday.org/

    This man is no simpleton, he is a real scholar who has written many books.

    You can find many others who believed the MVs but are now KJVO.

    http://www.scionofzion.com/kjo.htm

    You of course, could find someone who was KJVO and now is not. So, as I have always maintained, you cannot possibly resolve this question through scholarship. For me it is a matter of faith. I believe God promised to preserve his word and did. One of the versions has to be accurate. However, they cannot all be accurate because all versions are very different from each other. In my opinion, the KJV is the accurate translation.
     
  3. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    :applause:
     
  4. Steven2006

    Steven2006 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    So basically people that have been allowed years to debate this topic to the point that they have exhausted any further interest get to decide that any new member should not have that option.

    I vote no.

    The bible is at least a Christian topic, if there was a benefit in banning any topic I would vote for politics. It dominates this Christian board, and is more divisive and negative than even the KJVO topic.
     
  5. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Sorry the post was insulting. I was aiming that post at anti-KVJO folks. Yes that is my opinion that KJVO is a misguided theology.

    It is not a comment on the intelligence of KVJO folks. There are many super intelligent people who are misguided and believe in things that are wrong.

    I agree with you that scholarship will not resolve this issue for an individual and that it is ultimately a matter of faith. However, scholarship will be able to resolve a lot of the incorrect, false statements about both the KJV and MVs that have been frequently propogated to further this matter of faith that we disagree about.

    Everyone here can agree with that.

    This is where your faith has drawn you to an incorrect statement. And even if that statement is true, it is purely from preference alone that leads you to believe that this correct version is the KJV.

    I think it is great to hold to the view that the KJV is the most accurate version and preferring that translation exclusively. That is not the problem with KJVO thinking.
     
  6. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    My point is being made. Even this thread is being turned into the same old same old :tongue3:

    And that's where the comparisons to other discussions break down.
     
  7. Trotter

    Trotter <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It breaks down when someone decides the KJV is the measuring stick.
     
  8. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Accuracy of a translation does not require exactness.

    I can honestly say the same of the 1611 KJV versus the 1759 KJV as I can of
    the 1769 KJV and the 1982 NKJV or
    the 1952 RSV and the 1984 NIV.

    All are accurate insofar as they are faithful to the original language manuscripts.

    Even the KJV translators realized this (that no translation was exact) and publicly acknowledged the same:

    In other words the existing inaccuracies due to of the translation of the text can be found and clarified by comparing several of them concerning a passage which has come into question in any given language.

    The 1769 edition of the KJV of the Bible is a very accurate Jacobean-Elizabethan period English representation of the Greek and Hebrew text of the Scriptures but is not an exact duplicate of it and indeed cannot be.

    Ironically to say that it is exact is to say that Jesus was not truthful when He said that not one "jot" or "tittle" would pass from the law as there are no "jots" or "tittles " in the Pentateuch of any of the KJV editions.

    Jesus therefore meant the Hebrew texts.

    HankD
     
    #28 HankD, Apr 30, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2010
  9. jbh28

    jbh28 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    I say keep the topic open. If you are tired of discussing it, don't come in the the "Bible Versions/Translations" section.
     
  10. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    I disagree with this, I believe a translation can give the full and exact meaning. We even have an example of this in the book of Nehemiah, where the books of Moses were read to the people. They had come back from the 70 years Babylonian captivity, and some scholars believe that about 100 years had passed since their return. The people who returned were not familiar with the Hebrew, and so they had translators translate to the people.

    Neh 8:1 And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.

    Neh 8:7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.
    8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.


    And if a translation cannot be accurate, then most of the New Testament is not accurate, as Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, not Greek. We even have examples of this translation shown in the scriptures themselves.

    Mark 15:22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.

    John 19:17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

    Golgotha is an Aramaic word, and translates to the place of the skull. So in this one verse we have Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew all translated.
    So, this argument that a translation cannot give the full and concise meaning is very weak, the scriptures themselves show themselves to be a translation.
     
    #30 Winman, Apr 30, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 30, 2010
  11. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    That a translation can be accurate is shown many times in the scriptures, even by Jesus himself.

    Mark 10:10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

    This verse is written in Greek, but is a translation of the original autograph in Hebrew, which shows a translation (and a copy) can be scripture. Note that Jesus asked them if they had not "read this scripture". Do you believe these people had the original autographs, or is it far more likely they had a copy? So a copy can be scripture.

    Acts 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
    33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.
    34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
    35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.


    The Ethiopian eunuch did not have the original autographs, he had a copy. Yet the scriptures themselves declare this copy to be "scripture". And we also have a translation here, the original scripture was in Hebrew, but the book of Acts was written in Greek.

    In fact, we do not know for certain that these scriptures the Ethiopian eunuch was reading was in Hebrew. It may have been in Aramaic or Greek.

    Timothy knew the OT scriptures from childhood, but Timothy was Greek and most likely learned from a Greek translation. Yet they were called scripture by scripture itself.

    2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

    Timothy did not have the original autographs, he had copies. Yet Paul calls them "holy scriptures", and they were most likely a translation into Greek from Hebrew.
     
    #31 Winman, Apr 30, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 30, 2010
  12. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Where in the world do you get your notions? The people were not familiar with the Hebrew?! Come on now.

    And there was no translation taking place -- that's from one language to another. Ezra was giving the sense. He was explaining the meaning ofthe text -- as all preachers must.


    If a translation is full, it's unlikely that it's concise.
     
  13. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hey, I'm just telling you what most historians believe. These people who came back from Babylon had been speaking the Babylonian Aramaic for almost 200 years. Many of these people no longer knew Hebrew. This from Wikipedia;

    After the Babylonian captivity, Hebrew was no longer the dominant language of the Jews, Aramaic was as in Jesus's day.

    I have a good friend I work with named Dmitri, his parents came here from Russia. He told me he can understand Russian when he hears it, but he cannot speak well in Russian. His children do not know Russian whatsoever. And this is the case with the Jews, they were under the Babylonians for several generations and the Hebrew was lost to most of them.

    And whenever you see OT scripture restated in the NT, that is a translation itself. Yet it is declared "scripture" many times.

    So, these arguments that only the original autographs are scripture, and that a translation must be error is shown false by the scriptures themselves many times.
     
    #33 Winman, Apr 30, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 30, 2010
  14. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    The OT was written in three different languages, not one.

     
  15. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Anyone who has done translation work of any kind knows that this is untrue. It is an absolute impossibility. ALL TRANSLATIONS are a compromise. It is inherent in language.
     
  16. jbh28

    jbh28 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    That's because its the words that are Scripture, not the pieces of paper it is written on. A copy is Scripture because it is copying the words that God gave us. A translation is Scripture because it is a translation of the words that God gave us. A copy/translation is not given by inspiration as the original words were, so they can/do contain errors. The Scripture(the very words God gave us) do not contain any errors.
     
  17. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well, you can say that, but the NT scriptures themselves are mostly a translation as Jesus and most of his disciples did not speak Greek, but Aramaic.

    Anytime you see OT scripture quoted in the NT, that is a translation.

    And the scriptures themselves say the Ethiopian eunuch was reading scripture. Do you believe he had the original autographs? If you can convince yourself of that, you could probably convince yourself of anything.

    Acts 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

    Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

    The Ethiopian eunuch was without doubt reading a copy of scripture, and we do not know what language it was in, yet the scriptures themselves declare it to be scripture.

    You just don't like the fact that your argument is refuted by scripture itself.
     
  18. jbh28

    jbh28 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    There is a difference between the writers translating under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and people today translating.
     
  19. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Actually it disproves a basic tenet of KJVOism:

    Things that are different cannot be the same.

    To wit:

    Acts 8:32,33-

    He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.



    Isa. 53:7,8


    he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
    He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

    If Luke called it Scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who are you to argue with it?
     
  20. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    The scriptures the Ethiopian eunuch was reading (which the scriptures themselves declare to be scripture) were without doubt a copy, and is most probable they were not even in Hebrew, but Greek.

    What I am saying is that a faithful and accurate copy of scripture is declared to be scripture by scripture itself. That is what Acts 8:32,35 is showing.

    In fact, most historians believe the scripture the Ethiopian eunuch was reading was in Greek.

    And...

    So, most historians believe the Ethiopian eunuch was reading a Greek translation of the OT scriptures, yet the scriptures themselves declare what he was reading to be scripture.

    So, your argument that a copy and translation cannot be accurate scripture fails.
     
    #40 Winman, Apr 30, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 30, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...