Only problem is that is not what Paul is saying. When Jesus said if your hand offends you to cut it off, it is obvious hyperbole. Or maybe you actually believe Jesus was telling people to literally cut off their hands and pluck out their eyes? Oh yeah, I forgot, you believe babies are born with the ability to speak lies, are poisonous like adders, and have teeth like lions. So obviously you do not understand what hyperbole is.
If you are correct Paul is wishing physical harm to another human being, a very un-Christian attitude.
And I showed before, commentators like Matthew Henry understood cut off to mean to disassociate with false teachers, not to have fellowship with them. I agree with Henry's interpretation, not yours.
But the real point I am trying to make is that the KJV and the MVs are very different and are not saying the same thing in many verses.
A very silly KJVO argument...
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by robycop3, Mar 30, 2010.
Page 5 of 9
-
But the real point I am trying to make is that the KJV and the MVs are very different and are not saying the same thing in many verses.
Where is the "in my opinion."? In my opinion they aren't that different. Anyone with any reasonable level of intelligence, when reading the Bible in context, and not lifting out stand alone proof texts to support an opinion, would have no problem with a MV. In fact, in my opinion, one who speaks and reads modern english, would have even less problems. Personally, I have no problems with the KJV because of my life long exposure to it. However, I can tell you story after story of new Christians who have had no exposure to the KJV who perfer a MV because it is easier for them to understand. -
-
But God is so good. He's allowing us to find more and more manuscript evidence to clean up the small errors that have been found and to come closer and closer to a perfect copy of the original autographs. We'll never know exactly what they are since God found it fit to destroy them but God is quite powerful and can preserve His Word throughout the ages and today we can find faithful translations in our language in multiple versions. -
-
When I spoke of politics, I was referring to your answer where you did not take a stand. It's like the politician that came to my door and asked for my vote. I asked, "Are you pro-life or pro-choice?" He said, "I am pro-solution!" with a big grin on his face. I asked him to leave and promised I would never vote for him. He asked why, and I told him you can't ride the fence on this matter, you are either on one side or the other.
And that is what I keep asking here. I have demonstrated that the KJV and MVs are very different and do not say the same thing in many verses. In the example of Acts 13:20 there is an obvious problem, either the KJV must be in error or the MVs must be in error. They cannot both be inerrant at the same time.
But you insist Acts 13:20 is the same in both versions. Even Dr. Bob did not say that. And I have no idea if Jonathan Borland is KJVO or not. He simply said that the Alexandrian (MVs) and Byzantine (KJV) manuscripts differ very distinctly. He did not say he was KJVO.
What I have noticed though is that when you come right out and ask those who support the MVs if the KJV is corrupt and full of errors, they suddenly disappear and refuse to answer the question. I think that is very revealing. -
-
Every English version is a worka man, that is, God's perfect word translated by imperfect men into their languages at His will.
Given the many possible correct English renderings of many, MANY Hebrew or Greek words/phrases, it's no marvel that there are so many differences between translations. Thus, the AV men wrote that "variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures".
Just arbitrarily saying "This version is entirely-right & all others are wrong" is an unfounded statement based upon MAN'S speculation, opinions, & guesswork. The whole KJVO thingie or any other one-versionism is based mostly upon guesswork, partly on opinion, and NOT ON SCRIPTURE WHATSOEVER. -
I've gotta say, I'm learning sign language from two deaf people and even they disagree on the proper sign sometimes. Translating ANY language is such an imperfect science because there are just no comparisons between the two.
Here is from the KJV translators themselves in the Preface:
-
But I believe God clearly promised to preserve his word.
Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
And when God said he would preserve his word (which he did), he also said his word was pure, which means without corruption. So, his word is not like those books a few years back called "Where's Waldo", where we have to hope we can find God's word in a jumble of man's writings.
Now, maybe you don't believe this. I will admit is is a matter of faith, I have no absolute way of proving this. That is what faith is. If there was absolute proof, then there would be no faith required.
But if you agree that God preserved his word, then the question is, "Where is it?". It must be somewhere. It cannot be in all the various versions, because they are very different from each other. In fact, all the versions are different, even the MVs are very different from each other.
There are really only two possibilities.
#1 God did not preserve his word and it is lost forever.
#2 God did preserve his word in one version.
This is not rocket science. It is simple, straightforward, and pure logic. -
Sorry, but you are only wishing there were only two possibilities. A third possibility is that you are wrong and God preserved his word in a variety of good translations.
-
You keep talking about the translators, I am talking about God. My faith is that God promised to preserve his word. I simply believe God made sure those translators got it right. Did they believe themselves to be infallible? No. But God used them just the way he used very normal men in the scriptures.
James 5:17 Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.
18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.
Elijah was a very normal man, that is what this verse is saying. He had the same problems we all have. He made mistakes. But he had faith in God and God used him.
And this is what I believe about the KJV. I believe God moved men to write the scriptures in the language of the common man so every man could know God's word for himself and be saved. No longer would he be dependent upon the church (especially the RCC) to be told what God was saying in his word. They didn't call it the Dark Ages without reason, the Catholic church held men in ignorance for centuries, telling men they had their very souls in their hands. There were a few here and there that had the uncorrupted scriptures, and they were hunted down and killed without mercy.
These translators did not claim to be prophets, they freely admitted they were normal men. But they were good and honest men, and experts in the original languages. I simply believe God was behind their work, preserving his word as he had promised to do. -
For some reason you seem to completely miss this very simple concept. It's not what you or anyone else would prefer (I know I don't), but that is the way it is. If you want something better then get to cracking on learning ancient Hebrew, ancient Aramaic, and Koine Greek because that will be the only way you are going to get it.
It is a good thing that you have faith in the KJV and I commend you for it. Honestly I do. you stick by your guns and I admire that. My problem is when you try to take that and apply it to everyone else. That crosses over from personal conviction to man-made doctrine and only those like minded will accept that. -
The one thing I can't grasp is God stopping His hand in 1611 (or 1769 or whatever). Why would He preserve in language that isn't current and is confusing for a modern person reading it today? There are words that just don't mean today what they meant then. So is God looking to confuse the common man? Thank God the KJV translators didn't feel that way:
"Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed." [Isa 29:11]"
"But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar."
From the Preface to the KJV 1611. -
-
I have always believed that when Aaron threw down his rod in Pharaoh's palace that it became a snake.
NIV - Exd 7:12 -
Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.
NLT - Exd 7:12 -
Their staffs became snakes, too! But then Aaron's snake swallowed up their snakes.
But that is not correct.
KJV - Exd 7:12 -
For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.
ESV - Exd 7:12 -
For each man cast down his staff, and they became serpents. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.
NASB - Exd 7:12 -
For each one threw down his staff and they turned into serpents. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs.
Notice even the MV'S disagree with each other, but it is clear that the NIV and NLT are incorrect in their translation of "snake".
The Hebrew word used in this verse is tanniyn.
Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
8577. tanniyn
Nynt tanniyn tan-neen'
or tanniym (Ezek. 29:3) {tan-neem'}; intensive from the same as 8565; a marine or land monster, i.e. sea-serpent or jackal:--dragon, sea-monster, serpent, whale.
This is not a snake.
In Genesis, we also see the word "serpent", but it is a different Hebrew word, which does mean snake.
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
5175. nachash
vxn nachash naw-khawsh'
from 5172; a snake (from its hiss):--serpent.
The snake in the NIV and NLT referred to in Ex 7:12 is not a snake at all. This is a mistranslation.
The point is that like Winman has said, all versions do NOT say the same thing. -
Now, if the Holy Spirit guided the AV men, who's to say He didn't guide the translators of all the other valid versions, in English, and in other current tongues?
-
-
-
Page 5 of 9