Future of the KJV 1611

Uh, I see many times where He spoke Hebrew. Aramiac is conjecture, except where He spoke to Gentiles.

 

Ralph said "So? Is this now an attack on the TR?"

No, just plain facts.

Ralph said "Maybe you do have a point here, even the KJB is more accurate?"

No, just different. Preservation?

 

Hey Ralph, while you're firing off replies to posts in this thread, maybe you could get around to addressing this quote of yours, and my reply:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...now i suppose he will begin teaching an baptizing themall right after he teaches them Hebrew, Aramaic, and grekk...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Not at all. Teaching people in the languages they speak & understand is the Biblical model. (see Acts 2:1-8.) At Pentecost, the multitude present wasn't told they'd have to learn another language to hear the message: they all heard the message in their own tongues. Just as we today should make the Gospel available in words they will understand.

You're the one who made the claim that we should teach the rest of the world English so that they could hear & study God's Word."

 

It's a good example of what they know.

From the Introduction to An Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament by George Ricker Berry, Ph.D.

The Value of Hebrew and Greek to the Clergyman

1. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot understand the critical commentaries of the Scripture, and a commentary that is not critical is of doubtful value.

2. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot satisfy yourself . . as to the changes which you will find in the Revised Old and New Testament.

3. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot appreciate the critical discussions relating to the Books of the Old and New Testament.

4. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be certain that in your sermon based on a Scripture text, you are presenting the correct teaching of that text.

5. Without some knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, you cannot be an independent student or a reliable interpreter of the Word of God.

6. As much knowledge of Hebrew can be secured in one year with the aid of an Interlinear Old Testament as can be gained of Latin in three years. Greek, though somewhat more difficult, may be readily acquired with the aid of an Interlinear New Testament/Lexicon.

7. The Hebrew language has, in all, 7000 words, and of them 1000 are repeated over 25 times each in the Old Testament.

8. Hebrew grammar has but one form of the Relative pronoun in all cases, numbers and genders; by three forms for the Demonstrative pronoun. The possible verbal forms are about 300 as compared with the 1200 found in Greek. It has practically no declension.

9. Within ten years, the average man wastes more time in fruitless reading and indifferent talk, that would be used in acquiring a good working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek that in turn would impart to his teaching that quality of independence and of reliability which so greatly enhances one's power as a teacher.

10. There is not one minister in ten who might not if he but would, find time and opportunity for such study of Hebrew and Greek as would enable him to make a thoroughly practical use of it in his work as a Bible-preacher and Bible-teacher.

 

I do believe you're PROVING my point, the KJB is a compiliation of the 100% Truth/ the Pinnacle of God's Word.

 

Hey it's what we both claim to understand, so why do you suggest another language?

 

Yep, I agree, the TRUTH!

I agree with his systematic approach, but first he should understand Hebrew better, and then he would retract his promoting that version. But then we do have the problem of textual critcism incited by his metronomes/ w/h.

 

Hey it's what we both claim to understand, so why do you suggest another language? </font>[/QUOTE]Ralph, your obtuse non-answer is about the only reply I expected, so Thanks.

You and I both claim to understand English: True.

But what of the approximately 90% of the world's population for whom English is neither a primary or secondary language; and which they can neither read, write, speak, or understand? Why do you believe that they should be made to learn English prior to being able to hear or study God's Word? Such an impediment would result in efforts to evangelize the world coming to a screeching halt.

What of missionaries like Hudson Taylor, who diligently learned the Mandarin dialect so that he could reach the lost in China? And what of the thousands of missionaries overseas right now (some whose first language is not English themselves)? Do you really believe that they should abandon learning the languages of the indigenous people they have gone to reach, in favor of instead teaching English to those indigenous people with the objective of then reaching them & teaching them from the KJV? That seems to be the point you were making:

I gave you the Biblical example of Acts 2:1-8 in which the multitude were given the message in their own tongues. They weren't first expected to learn another language before hearing the Word. Can you provide even one Biblical example of someone first being required to learn a secondary language to hear & study God's Word? The whole point of organizations like Wycliffe is to make the Word of God available in other languages; languages which are understood and comprehensible to the people who actually speak them.

An honest, straightforward answer would be appreciated.

 

Ever think of getting a dictionary? The modern versions go beyond updating the language of the KJB, they use entirely different mss.

 

Uh, gb, maybe Greek, but I would never be voted in if I had to have any proficiency in Hebrew.

I'm learning modern Arabic now for my work. Man, talk about a KILLER. I don't know much about language history, but I suspect modern Arabic and Hebrew have some roots together since they seem to be similar.

I wish all parents had the foresight and energy to teach their kids five or six languages when they are learning to speak. It is my understanding that if this is done, they have no problems seperating the languages and they learn the basics as fast as English.

Good point though. It is sad that you even have to make that statement; however, since our modern translations are all we need. The only reason we would have to learn Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic is for in-depth study or to prove the KJVo wrong. Again, sad . . .

 

Hey Ralph, it occurs to me that you have presented a contradiction in your beliefs:

Quote #1:

Quote #2:

The disconnect that exists between these thoughts is this:

Why would it matter how many languages are lacking a translation of the Bible, if your solution for all of those people is to universally teach them English so that they can know & understand God's Word?

 

Even better, lets get a Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic dictionary and throw out ALL of the English Bibles.

 

My Bible is not in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, so therefore a English dictionary would do wonders.

 

re: the quote from the Introduction to An Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament by George Ricker Berry, Ph.D. (written in 1897).

POR: "I agree with his systematic approach, but first he should understand Hebrew better, and then he would retract his promoting that version. But then we do have the problem of textual critcism incited by his metronomes/ w/h."

Funny, I see nothing in those 10 points that reflect W-H, especially since Berry's 1897 and oft-reprinted Interlinear doesn't even cite W-H or their text. The last editions mentioned in the footnoted variants are Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and Wordsworth -- all at least 9 years *before* W-H, and every one a good deal more conservative theologically than (at least) Hort.

As for Berry needing to "understand Hebrew better", Berry happened to be the Semitic Languages Professor at the University of Chicago and Colgate University back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Berry in fact prepared the Interlinear Old Testament volumes containing Genesis and Exodus. No question he understood both Hebrew and Greek as well as English quite well.

 

Ralph
"And your magic ball says what language?"
"
I have no idea, I wouldn't mind a return of French to that position (it was the international language prior to English), but that's mostly because my French is better than my English.
I would like Dutch even better ofcourse.

" so I belive we should stick with the English, y'know,"
"
So that you don't need to learn anything new...
Haven't you realized yet Ralph that laziness is the devil's pillow(ledigheid is des duivels oorkussen).

"Is that why so many Bible colleges teach these languages and rely solely upon the KJB?"
"
No good Bible college does.

 

You presume that the KJV commonly in use today is the AV 1611. If memory serves correctly, the most common KJV in use today is the 1769 edition.

If the KJVO were the only translation available, I see no reason why the KJV could not continue to be revised, since it has been continually revised since its inception. It's been revised numerous times since 1611. There were several major revisions to update language, and numerous minor revision to update grammatical, spelling, and textual errors.

 

To adhere to that assertion, one must abandon the KJV and stick to only the Tyndale translation.

No, your Bible is a translation of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and nothing more than a translation of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

 

This can be backed up by papers by Dr. Thomas Strouse of Emmanuel Baptist Seminary in PA I believe.

 

You mean to tell me the KJV isn't the scripture that 2 Timothy 3:16 talks about? Some seem to think that it is. Can you prove by verses from the Bible that the KJV is only a translation and not scripture itself? Some claim that God told them the KJV is the correct Bible. I wonder if they had a burning in the bosom just like those from the LDS too.

 

gb93433, as you know, scripture does not mention translations at all. Hence, the idea that a specific translation is authoritatively equal or superior to its source texts is not an idea that can be backed up by scripture.