Not as sharp as you guys, but I do agree on those passages :)
Final written authority?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Aug 5, 2010.
Page 2 of 4
-
-
I would love to hear from the 'One Final Written Authority' guys on this one.
-
HankD -
I also believe the CT translated into any language would be error. But that is my personal belief. -
Also, as the NKJV is translated from the RT do you now endorse the NKJV as being the pure, preserved, perfect word of God in English? -
To me, this is not a problem, I simply believe God preserved his pure word as he promised to do. While I do not think the KJB translators were inspired, I believe God had a hand in making sure the translators chose the correct texts. I do not believe God withdrew into heaven after Revelations and has left the preservation of his word solely in the hands of fallible men.
And that is what you critics try to do, take the argument outside of faith and make it a scholarly argument. Whether you are a RT person or a CT person, you will never be able to prove it through scholarship.
This is what people cannot understand about KJB only folks like me. Our belief in the KJB is based on faith, not scholarship. Here is a statement from David Cloud's website, but I believe this statement was made by Dean Burgon (I might be mistaken on this)
As I wrote before, I cannot prove the six day creation, but I believe it because that is what the scriptures say. And I believe God promised to preserve his word and has done so. If a person believes God has preserved his word and wants the world to know it, you basically come down to the scriptures based on the RT texts versus the CT texts. They are not the same, they cannot both be the preserved and pure word of God. I believe the KJB based on the RT wins hands down in every catagory.
The NKJV is very different from the KJB and you know that. Yes, the same text was used, but in many verses it deviates from the KJB and gives MV renderings. -
So now you are admitting you ARE KJVO. I thought so all along. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The Moto Yaku ("Original Translation") of 1880 was the first complete Japanese Bible, and it was translated from the KJV. However, it was chock full of errors, so many of them that it was revised by 1917.
To give just one example, the Greek oinos ("wine" in the KJV) was translated with the Japanese word sake (sah-keh), which has two meanings: (2) very high alcoholic content rice wine, or (2) any alcoholic drink. Wouldn't you agree this is an error?
In my own experience translating the TR into Japanese, I made many errors in the first draft, sometimes leaving out words or phrases and other times just plain getting it wrong. The Holy Spirit is not superintending my translation to keep me from errors. We are about 70% done with the second draft. I've been proofing the second draft, which was also corrected by my Greek scholar son, and am finding lots of errors. -
An example. Since the Japanese people do not have a quality translation from the traditional text body do they not have a final written authority? Did God lie to them?
Could you answer the question in the OP please and not just repeat your mantra? What Bible is the final written authority for an English speaker ministering in another language? -
-
Lets not let ourselves be drawn off track please folks.
The question is simple. What is the final prefect written authority for English speaker if he/she is ministering with those who speak another language? -
not too many responses from the hard-line KJO crowd here....why is that? :) -
Japanese Christians do not have a quality translation from the traditional text body. Did God forget about them when He promised to preserve His word? -
Winman:Yes, I have said here there are very many versions of the RT. In a sense it is misleading to say the KJB was translated from the RT. The bulk of the KJB is clearly from the RT, but there is evidence the translators used sources outside the RT.
What sources? Which version of the RT? Howdya KNOW they used the RIGHT one?
To me, this is not a problem, I simply believe God preserved his pure word as he promised to do.
So do we Freedom Readers.
While I do not think the KJB translators were inspired, I believe God had a hand in making sure the translators chose the correct texts.
So do we Freedom Readers, for every valid version.
I do not believe God withdrew into heaven after Revelations and has left the preservation of his word solely in the hands of fallible men.
Neither do we Freedom Readers, nor do we believe He retired in 1611. We believe He still superintends His own word as always; thus, He has provided His word in OUR language.
And that is what you critics try to do, take the argument outside of faith and make it a scholarly argument. Whether you are a RT person or a CT person, you will never be able to prove it through scholarship.
God not only gave us His word; he also gave us intelligence enough to discern many things for ourselves. You're simply saying, "I'm right cuz I aint wrong."
This is what people cannot understand about KJB only folks like me. Our belief in the KJB is based on faith, not scholarship.
It's based on GUESSWORK. Faith has substance & evidence; KJVO has neither.
Here is a statement from David Cloud's website, but I believe this statement was made by Dean Burgon (I might be mistaken on this)
Quote:
Concerning the preservation of the Scriptures, our faith is not in man, but in God. Even if the Reformation editors had fewer resources than those of more recent times, we know that the God who controls the times and the seasons was in control of His Holy Word. The infallible Scriptures were not hidden away in some monastic dungeon at the foot of Mt. Sinai or in a dusty corner of the Pope’s library. The infallible Scriptures were being published, read, and taught by God’s people.
You will never understand this view through scholarship. We simply believe what God promised.
Again, so do we Freedom Readers. We are NOT restricted by the theories, doctrines, opinions, & guesswork of men, as you KJVOs are. You have absolutely NO SRIPTURAL SUPPORT for your KJVO doctrine, while its MAN-MADE SOURCES are quite apparent.
As I wrote before, I cannot prove the six day creation, but I believe it because that is what the scriptures say. And I believe God promised to preserve his word and has done so.
Again, so do we Freedom readers.
If a person believes God has preserved his word and wants the world to know it, you basically come down to the scriptures based on the RT texts versus the CT texts. They are not the same, they cannot both be the preserved and pure word of God.
Again, WHY NOT? According to YOUR standard, you must choose onle ONE of the Four Gospels as Scripture since they're all different narrations of the same events; you must also choose among Kings, Chronicles, and Samuel as to which is correst. If not, you're guilty of having a DOUBLE STANDARD.
I believe the KJB based on the RT wins hands down in every catagory.
Guesswork.
The NKJV is very different from the KJB and you know that. Yes, the same text was used, but in many verses it deviates from the KJB and gives MV renderings.
So, can ya PROVE anything in the NKJV as incorrect? In fact, it corrects some goofs in the KJV, such as 1 Tim. 6:10 where the KJV reads,"For the love of money is THE root of ALL evil." The NKJV correctly reads,"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." The NKJV reads 'passover' in Acts 12:4.
But backta Roger's Q...There's simply no way a translation made from a translation can be as accurate as one made from the ancient Scriptural mss. However, a translation made from a translation is better than having nothing at all. Most missionaries can't read those ancient mss anyway, so they dance with who brung'em. And as long as they're using a valid version of the Bible, old or new, it doesn't really matter WHICH valid version they use. A truly devout missionary should be able, WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT'S GUIDANCE, to present the Gospel in an understandable manner to their audiences from any valid Bible version in the missionary's native tongue. -
So, for the perfect final written authority adherents, what is a man's final authority when he ministers to people who speak another language?
-
-
Frankly, I think the final written authorized scripture is found in the original document, which, thankfully, are lost.
On preservation, I believe that is contained in all scriptures, regardless of translation, passed down through the ages. Not word-for-word, but concepts and I can conceptualize the word of God from those concepts, combined with my consistency of understanding.
Cheers,
Jim -
-
My answer would be what experience has generally shown. What have missionaries done the last several hundred years? Most have taken an English translation, more often than not the KJB, and then either learned the language, found a translator, or taught someone English who could translate the English scriptures accurately into that langauge.
Someone mentioned Japan, there are KJB only missionaries in Japan.
http://www.members.tripod.com/militarygetsaved/japan_ibcl.htm
[off topic] -
[reply to off topic post]
Page 2 of 4