God's word

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
[QBWere they published with the Apocrypha? Was it an official part of the translation sitting between the OT and NT in the final product?

Who cares about the Apocrypha? The Apocrypha is placed in between the OT and NT for historical use only, NOT TO EVER BE CONSIDERED SCRIPTURE. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]With this in mind, please explain why some of the same folks who gave us the KJV made it a crime to print the KJV without the Apocrypha.

Be honest with yourself, if a new version came out with a copyright condition that the Apocrypha must always be included between the OT and NT, what would your reaction be?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
A few others? You mean not all the versions out there are God's word?

That is exactly what I mean. For instance, I believe the gender inclusive versions have ceased to be God's Word. Not because they are necessarily always wrong in their interpretations but rather because they employ interpretation so heavily.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
1) Because of language changes that cause some people not to understand God's perfectly preserved message.

According to 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Until you get saved, you won't understand God's word.</font>[/QUOTE] That's true. An unsaved person won't understand the spiritual truths taught in the KJV, NASB, or NKJV.

It has absolutely nothing to do with grammar or diction... and everything to do with spiritual blindness to things that are readily seen. This scripture really only applies if an individual can comprehend the language that transmits a message that they cannot understand.

That is one reason I believe for all the modern versions. Man wants to understand God's word without going through the blood of Jesus so they try and write God's word so they can understand it. They want another way that they can control.

That is pure foolishness Homebound and you should certainly know it.

Read your quote above except where you said "modern versions" insert "translations". Hopefully you will see how ridiculous your argument is.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This is especially dangerous when someone reads something in the KJV thinking they understand because the words are familiar while they in fact don't understand because the primary definitions have changed over the past 400 years.

That's why God tells us in 2 Timothy 2: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.</font>[/QUOTE] Again, that scripture has nothing to do with an inability to adequately understand a form of English that is no longer in popular use nor a failure to recognize words whose definitions have changed.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />2) Because a variety of translations are beneficial for understanding the true sense of scripture... thus saith the KJV translators themnselves.

Actually I think the opposite. Because of all the variety of translations we have confusion and doubting of God's word. </font>[/QUOTE][/quote][/qb] Then it should be easy enough to prove... but you haven't proved it. All of the anecdotal proofs given by you can be countered in kind against the KJV... but none of them are valid.

God's Word in faithful versions is consistent. It is disobedience to that Word (such as KJVOnlyism) that causes strife, division, and confusion... and causes the weak to doubt God's Word.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
I think we've beat the horse to death don't you?

Not as long as you continue to post stuff that is categorically false.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HomeBound:

But how can you refer back to the originals when the originals are lost?

The original *autographs* are lost, but the original *readings* that were in autographs have been preserved in the Greek and Hebrew copies we have today.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Scott J:
With this in mind, please explain why some of the same folks who gave us the KJV made it a crime to print the KJV without the Apocrypha.

I don't have a clue.

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HomeBound:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:

I think I posted that I don't believe that sidenotes are to be considered scripture.

An interesting comment, considering that the KJV itself is sometimes translated from the Hebrew "sidenotes" rather than the main text. Apparently the KJV translators considered some of those "sidenotes" to be Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Really, where? </font>[/QUOTE]Five examples of places where the KJV abandons the actual wording of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (the kethib) and follows the reading of the marginal note in the Hebrew Masoretic text (the qere):

(1) Jud. 16:26, where the actual Hebrew text reads "touch the pillars," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "feel the pillars."

(2) 1 Kg. 22:48, where the actual Hebrew text reads "Jehoshaphat had ten ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "Jehoshaphat made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir."

(3) 2 Kg. 20:4, where the actual Hebrew text reads "the city," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "the middle court."

(4) Isa. 10:32, where the actual Hebrew text reads "the mount of the house of Zion," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "the mount of the daughter of Zion."

(5) Isa. 65:4, where the actual Hebrew text reads "pieces of," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "broth of."

Apparently the KJV translators thought that the marginal notes were Scripture sometimes.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:

But how can you refer back to the originals when the originals are lost?

The original *autographs* are lost, but the original *readings* that were in autographs have been preserved in the Greek and Hebrew copies we have today. </font>[/QUOTE]Then let us turn to the copies for answers instead of all these versions. I doubt we can, since a copy is not the original and the original is the only word of God perfectly kept, right?

 

[Archangel7]

Originally posted by HomeBound:

I always wondered why then do we not rewrite Shakespeare's writings. Why, because it would not be the same.

One reason why we don't re-write Shakespeare's writings because they were originally written in English -- unlike the text of the Bible, which was originally written in Greek and Hebrew and needs to be translated into English.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:

I think I posted that I don't believe that sidenotes are to be considered scripture.

An interesting comment, considering that the KJV itself is sometimes translated from the Hebrew "sidenotes" rather than the main text. Apparently the KJV translators considered some of those "sidenotes" to be Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]Really, where? </font>[/QUOTE]Five examples of places where the KJV abandons the actual wording of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (the kethib) and follows the reading of the marginal note in the Hebrew Masoretic text (the qere):

(1) Jud. 16:26, where the actual Hebrew text reads "touch the pillars," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "feel the pillars."

(2) 1 Kg. 22:48, where the actual Hebrew text reads "Jehoshaphat had ten ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "Jehoshaphat made ships of Tharshish to go to Ophir."

(3) 2 Kg. 20:4, where the actual Hebrew text reads "the city," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "the middle court."

(4) Isa. 10:32, where the actual Hebrew text reads "the mount of the house of Zion," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "the mount of the daughter of Zion."

(5) Isa. 65:4, where the actual Hebrew text reads "pieces of," while the KJV follows the Hebrew marginal note reading "broth of."

Apparently the KJV translators thought that the marginal notes were Scripture sometimes. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't quite understand these sidenotes. Where were they in the Bible? Meaning, when where they inserted in the Bible? Where they printed with the Bible? As you can see, I don't know much about these sidenotes, so I cannot answer or refute your comment.

 

[HankD]

HomeBound, I won't address your answers except the one below and except to say that you have softened considerably over the last couple of years having been confronted with facts. This is the normal process for those willing to listen.

Okay, how do you narrow it down to the NKJV/NASB? Or any other version?

As they are faithful to the original language texts. In order to know whether a Bible is faithful in this manner you have to study for your self or trust your pastor. The KJV is the Word of God and CAN be trusted, mainly because you are familiar with its archaisms, stick around here at the BB to learn about other trustworthy versions in a more contemporary style of English.

Many here at the BB could answer your inquiry about kethiv/qere (Hebrew system of variants) but I'm sure Archangel will do a good job.

HankD

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:

I always wondered why then do we not rewrite Shakespeare's writings. Why, because it would not be the same.

One reason why we don't re-write Shakespeare's writings because they were originally written in English -- unlike the text of the Bible, which was originally written in Greek and Hebrew and needs to be translated into English. </font>[/QUOTE]Which was done in 1611. Why the need for another?

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by HankD:
HomeBound, I won't address your answers except the one below and except to say that you have softened considerably over the last couple of years having been confronted with facts. This is the normal process for those willing to listen.

I'm sorry to disappoint you brother, but it by far was not this board that softened my heart over the years. It was the Holy Spirit using my pastor to preach(from the King James Bible) the word of God that taught me that I cannot force anything on anyone. Also teaching me that others can be saved through another versions.

As they are faithful to the original language texts. In order to know whether a Bible is faithful in this manner you have to study for your self or trust your pastor. The KJV is the Word of God and CAN be trusted, mainly because you are familiar with its archaisms, stick around here at the BB to learn about other trustworthy versions in a more contemporary style of English.

HankD

But the originals are lost and therefore we cannot refer back to them.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
But the originals are lost and therefore we cannot refer back to them.

As is the original KJV... so you cannot refer back to it either.

So you refer back to something you cannot put your hands on every bit as much as we do... but we refer back to something that God claimed to have directly inspired. You refer back to translation made by Anglican scholars of an imperfect source text.

We know it was imperfect as even the translators recognized its imperfections and included readings from other sources.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Which was done in 1611. Why the need for another?

This question has already been answered twice Homebound. I know you don't like the answers but you have yet to refute them or even deal with them in a meaningful way.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Being "available with" is a far cry from "including".

Published with is published with no matter how hard you try to spin it.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
With this in mind, please explain why some of the same folks who gave us the KJV made it a crime to print the KJV without the Apocrypha.

I don't have a clue. </font>[/QUOTE]Then why don't you respond to this portion of my post:

Be honest with yourself, if a new version came out with a copyright condition that the Apocrypha must always be included between the OT and NT, what would your reaction be?

Do you not want to know the truth? Would you rather be willingly ignorant?

You are being confronted with things you don't want to deal with. Many of us who used to be KJVO can sympathize (though I was never hardcore like many of you). But please be honest enough not to evade or misapply scripture. Just deal with these things straight up... if your current beliefs cannot accommodate what has been proven to be factual then it isn't the facts that should be evaded, questioned, or denied... it is your beliefs.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Being "available with" is a far cry from "including".

Published with is published with no matter how hard you try to spin it. </font>[/QUOTE]Not spinning Skan. You know that none of the translators of the versions you mentioned set out to produce a translation of the OT, NT, and Apocrypha. You also know that these translation committees had no denominational nor doctrinal inclination to include the Apocrypha like the KJV translators did.

My basic premise is that the MV translators held a different and lower regard for the Apocrypha than did the KJV translators. Unless you disagree with this statement, there is no need for your hair-splitting over semantics.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

You also know that these translation committees had no denominational nor doctrinal inclination to include the Apocrypha like the KJV translators did.

Then WHY did those translators choose to ditch the Syrian/Byzantine Texts of the Reformation for the Egyptian/Jesuit mss of the dark-ages,that INCLUDES the Apocrypha in both testaments as Holy writ??

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
You also know that these translation committees had no denominational nor doctrinal inclination to include the Apocrypha like the KJV translators did.

How can you read the 39 Articles of Religion of 1577 and claim the KJV translators have a "doctrinal inclination" to include the Apocrypha?

My basic premise is that the MV translators held a different and lower regard for the Apocrypha than did the KJV translators.

How can you have a lower view than "non-canonical?"

Unless you disagree with this statement, there is no need for your hair-splitting over semantics.

I see. So, I cannot correct your errors nor try to teach you something, for you already know everything there is to know about everything?