Another interesting thing is to consider what is being communicated.
KJV 2
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by JonC, May 21, 2021.
Page 5 of 8
-
Those verses actually support my position more than yours. -
You ignore and dodge the proven fact that the KJV translators omitted providing any English word for many original-language words of Scripture in their underlying texts. They gave examples of some of them in their 1611 marginal notes. In their 1611 marginal notes, they provided an English rendering for those original-language words of Scriptures but in the text of the verses they provided no English words for them.
Preservation: over 2000 missing words in KJV's NT? | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com) -
Michael Hollner asserted: "Scholars are quiet about facts that do not fit their own narratives" (King James Only Debate, p. 97).
Evidently Michael Hollner may be guilty of what he accused others since he is quiet about facts that do not fit his KJV-only narrative. He keeps dodging and avoiding certain facts, including facts that prove some of his assertions in his book are not true. -
James II? He was Catholic and got run off.
-
Michael Hollner, with all due respect, I (& others) await a response to the FACT that NO known ancient Greek mss. of Revelation contains the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5, which proves they were ADDED my men to God's word in the KJV, thus proving its imperfection. (Not to mention the glaring "Easter" goof in Acts 12:4.) If you have no other valid, provable explanation, please do the Christian thing & admit the fact of addition of those words is right. Same for Easter in Acts 12:4.
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
We hope someday to have an OT, but I may not be the one to finish it. "Uncle Miya" and I did the first 30 psalms, but I am working on the rest and have a Japanese partner for the work. (Uncle MIya is in Heaven now.)
‘you have no standing whatsoever to give advice to a missionary translator.”
And here's an example of why you should not be giving advice to missionary translators. If we all obeyed your criterion of being fluent in the source and target languages since childhood, very few Bible translations would get done. By this criterion, the great missionary translators of history were not qualified: Ulfilas, Jerome, Adoniram Judson, William Carey (45 languages; his Bengali one is still printed--I saw it myself in Bangladesh), Henry Martyn (Persian), Karl Gutzlaff (Thai, Chinese OT, first Japanese effort), Robert Morrison (Chinese), Nathan Brown (Japanese) and so many others.
The way such men did their work is that they had good native speaking partners, and that is how we have done our Japanese NT--with Japanese co-translators and many helpers. It is God who gifts us to do this, but missionary and similarly gifted national translators do the work together.
-
It sits on my desk and it is called the New American Standard Bible. -
Hello, Mikoo. Welcome to the Baptist Board. I hope you find it a blessing.
-
-
-
Which Nas edition do you use? As still using my 1977 Ryrie edition! -
BTW, WELCOME to this board! -
-
-
-
-
-
You are taking my response out of context and putting words in my mouth. I said in context it is referring to the rulers of the people and that Scripture tells us to proclaim “thou shalt have no others gods before me” (Exodus 20:3) KJV. Perhaps you see it as a contradiction, whereas our jobs as teachers is to explain the context of Psalms 82:1-8; John 10:34-35; II Chronicles 19:1-11 and many other Scriptures, ‘precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, and there a little’ lest we get snared in a lack of a proper interpretation of Scripture (Isaiah 28:9-13) KJV. Yes, it is contextually applied to rulers and ‘judges,’ so just explain that as a teacher rather than attempt to change what God said. If God wanted it to say ‘judges’ He would have said judges. Perhaps He wants us to ‘rightfully divide the Word of truth’ and explain these things. With all due respect, I personally would fear changing even one single Word of God. Fair warning.
I am a bit disappointed in that PERHAPS you misrepresented what I actually said and did ‘wrest’ my words a bit here. But I always give the benefit of the doubt and perhaps I did not clarify my own context.
‘Yet you seem to think it's okay to let idolaters get by, simply because the KJV allows it,”
No John, the KJV Bible does not allow for idolatry. You just seem to think it does by your failure to read the context of Scripture line upon line, here a Scripture, and over there a Scripture (Isa 28:9-13) KJV.
‘It could have very easily been translated, "Thou shalt not revile the judges," and it should have been.’
So you admit then that all modern versions have it wrong in reading “you shall not revile, blaspheme, or curse God”?
Thus in the context of Scripture it is clear that the true meaning of all these verses in context as found in the King James Bible, is that the word “gods” refers to earthly men who were given the divinely appointed office of judges who were to administer God’s laws to the common people.
I am thinking you possibly already knew this from your statement “It could have very easily been translated, "Thou shalt not revile the judges, and it should have been," but at the same time you made the statement, ‘Yet you seem to think it's okay to let idolaters get by, simply because the KJV allows it,” when you just admitted that this is not what the KJV is saying by mentioning ‘judges’ as a correct reading. Perhaps you do understanding the context of these Scriptures and I was mistaken.
““And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” Exodus 7:1 (KJV).
Blessings….. -
Just be careful not to use the NASB95 in John 1:18 though, you might not want to tell folks God was begotten. Seems the new update had to patch that one up.
Page 5 of 8