1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

kjv against the rest. Is it as bad I as I am led to believe?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by WITBOTL, Oct 17, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    No, that is just the common meaning that we attach to it. To some it is the first day of the week. To others it is a day of rest. To others it is the last day of the "week-end." To still others it is the day that we go to church. People define "Sunday" in various ways depending on the context in which it is used.
    However the actual meaning of the word is "day of the sun," a day set apart to worship the sun. With that in mind are you sure you still want to call the first day of the week "Sunday"?
    But that is a bit off topic, as you said. I was just showing you how meanings of words change, and how you can't trust the English language for the meaning of the word in the Bible. It is the Greek that gives the meaning, not the English. All translations, including the KJV, must have the Greek as their authority. Any word in question is defined by both context and the Greek from which it came.
    It has nothing to do with what our Lord wants. The word "conversation" in the KJV means behaviour. It is an outdated archaic word that is no longer used in that sense. Surely you must agree to that.

    1 Timothy 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
    --Was Paul talking about Timothy's speech or behaviour? I think that the answer is obvious.
    The underlying Greek and Hebrew text gives us the exact meaning of not only the KJV but of every other translation. Surely you don't suggest that as a missionary I ought to teach illiterate people in third world nations the KJV English before I can teach them to read the Bible in their own language? The translation of their Bible must come from the Greek and Hebrew. And in their language the meaning of "pascha" for example would most definitely be translated as "passover."
    Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
    --The verse is speaking of the time of the passover, not of the resurrection of Christ. Even context proves you wrong.
    No, I would rather see the Bible accurately translated. What has that got to do with "being under the law."
    Accuracy of translation has nothing to do with Judaism.
     
  2. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to Harold Garvey and Refreshed, I don't need any.

    Is it your position that there should be only one translation in a given tongue at any given time? If that's the case, then it argues against the KJV, since the KJV existed at the same time that the Bishops, Geneva, Tyndale, and several others were all heavily used.
     
  3. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    [off topic]
     
  4. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    82
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I didn't say that. But you didn't answer my question either. How many versions do you need? 5? 10? 25? 50? 100? How many?
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    I only need one. But that's just me. Is there a scriptural limit on the number of permissible translations in a given language?
     
  6. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hey, at least you didn't misrepresent my position.

    By the way, I said it and I'll say it again. The KJV is God's Word for the English speaking people. English Johnv, not Spanish. English. I can't argue for the native Spanish speakers.

    You know as well as anyone Johnv that if there had only been a difference in updating the language, there would have never been a problem to begin with. It was when they started taking whole blocks of verses out that the problem became obvious. By the way, why should we trust every new translation that comes out to be the Word of God, because we are told to do so? Even if there are huge differences? What if the scholars found a manuscript that *proved* most everything in the Bible was added after the fact? Would you believe the scholars then? How about if 50 percent was added after the fact? 25 percent? 5 percent? We have enough of a problem living the Book that we shouldn't be tearing it apart.
     
  7. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Refreshed:
    What do you see wrong with the NKJV, if anything?
     
  8. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, for one thing, when we do our congregational scripture reading, if someone is using it, you can tell and it throws everyone off.
     
  9. Refreshed

    Refreshed Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    7
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Also, all of the thees and thous are taken out. Therefore we have a less accurate rendering of the Greek language. You did know that, didn't you?

    Oh, and I can add also that there are many words that are changed, of course you will argue that the NKJV has the superior translation, so don't take that as evidence.
     
  10. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you have some scriptural support for maintaining that only the KJV qualifies as the Word of God for all English speaking people?
    That's what a lot of people in 1612 said when the KJV was published, which is why the KJV was rejected by so many in England. So great was the rejection of the KJV that the Crown had to make it illegal to possess any bible other than the KJV.
    That argument is easily refuted by the fact that KJVOists reject any translation that uses the same source texts as the KJV, therefore having the same passages as the KJV.
    That's your claim about the KJV. That we should trust it to be the sole Word of God, based on your say so.
    Interesting question, considering that KJVOists reject maniscripts that show that passages in the TR were added. So, apparantly, if the TR added them, then it's okay, but if the LXX added them, then it's not okay.
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Well, this thread has degenerated to the same old discussion of so many scores of threads. Since it is bed time here and it would reach the 20 page limit in the next couple of hours I am opting to close it now.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...