Our Lord is terrible

There's a difference?

 

A basic, unavoidable fact...ALL the words have been translated & retranslated many times. Wycliffe's translation was in the best English of his day. Those who have read Chaucer's worx in their original form will know that. The AV1611 was written in the English of THAT time. the NKJV was written in the English of THIS day & age.

The arguments of those who would keep us confined to older versions whose English style has become archaic/obsolete are without merit.

 

Rufus_1611: //Chick tracts do not bear the fruit
of the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.//

Consider the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints (AKA: Mormons),
the 5th largest denomination in the USofA,
they were raised on the KJV1769 Edition --
are they the fruit of the Authorized Version
of the Holy Bible?

Are the million Jehovah's Witnesses in the USofA
rooting for 144,000 thousand Kingdom slots,
who were raised on the KJV1769 Edition --
are they the fruit of the Authorized Version
of the Holy Bible?

 

I'm embarrassed to say that when I first saw this reference to "Chick Tracts", I thought you were talking about tracts decorated with flowers, containing stories about relationships and kids dying of cancer.

 

my bad - second post???

 

Throw in Jim Jones and you'll have a heretic trifecta you can blame the AV for. :thumbs:

 

Lets step back in time 395 years.

Why do all of the modern versions such as the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the king's new translation use that word "terrible" in Psalm 47v2? Would they not be much better to use the grand old word "ferdful" instead. Why are we dumbing down our beautiful language? Why do we insist on changing God's word by retranslation? God gave us His word through our dear brother Wycliff, why do we have to change His word?

 

ED;
You know as well as anybody else here that both the Mormon's and JW's developed their OWN translations when they could not defend their heresies. Therefore; your weak attempt at guilt by association is at best pathetic.

Both Mormons and JW's are NOT "raised"on the KJV and you know it. In fact they are "raised on their extra biblical writings and rarely refer to Scripture at all. I know a few of each and even THEY would laugh you to scorn.

Try again buddy.

edited to add: I know I said I was bowing out of this but if no one else is going to call this error to task............

 

Why not solve it all and step back in time 2000 or 3500 years?

 

Well...I would say that the words of the Lord are pure words as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times (ps 12:6) but that would return us to a former controversy, so I won't say it

 

I guarantee if I believed that theory that I could come up with a seven for the Wycliff translation.

At the end of the day - is the only reason for insisting on the use of "terrible" because that is what the KJV uses?

 

Amen, Brother C4K - Preach it! :thumbs:

 

Could you restate that please? I'm not sure what you mean.

Twice in one thread, did you just see Les Miserables or something?

For me it is. I consider the AV/KJV to be the word of God in the English language and there should be no cause to pause in reading to children, just because they might not understand what "terrible" means as they are just as apt to misunderstand "awesome". Regardless of the word used, I think Jim has made an excellent point with Nehemiah 8:8.

 

The purifying 7 times concept can be made to fit any translation.

I apologise that "at the end of the day" bothers you. It in idiom here for "when it comes right down to it."

Does Nehemiah 8v8 not apply to 1611? Should they not just have explained Wycliff's words and allowed Him to give them understanding?

"And thei redden in the book of Goddis lawe distinctli, `ether atreet, and opynli to vndurstonde; `and thei vndurstoden, whanne it was red."

 

Disagree, but alright.

No apology necessary. I just start humming "How great thou art" to get that song out of my head

The AV was created so that out of many would come one. I suspect that the 47 translators looked at Wycliff's "ferdful", looked at Coverdale's "to be feared", looked at the Bishop's, & the Geneva's "terrible", looked at the Hebrew and were moved to settle on "terrible". There is now no necessity to dwell on the Bibles that preceded the AV as the AV was the masterpiece that took the best from the preceding and purified it into a final work in modern English. If God had any role in that effort (and I suspect He did), then I'm comfortable that "terrible" was the right word to use.

 

When it come right down to it (not "at the end of the day") this is where it settles, one's opinion that a certain translation is best. When you do that then it becomes the crux of all one's arguments.

 

Maybe so. However, when you throw in things like...

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" - John 10:27​

...well, I hear the voice of Jesus Christ in one Bible and the voice of Jesus Christ mixed with someone else in the other Bibles to varying degrees. Others might say they hear the voice of Jesus in "valid translations". Those in the "valid translation" camp don't seem to have a common definition of what is valid or invalid, as a book like The Message is considered to be the word of God to some, but not to others. Still others, they believe they hear His voice in "The Lost Spiritual World" or that "gay" Bible thing. Thus, we seem to have a bit of variance amongst the sheep (or those that think they are sheep) as to where the voice of Jesus is found. This makes the issue a perhaps greater issue, then just a matter of opinion.

Regardless, I've enjoyed reasoning with you on this Roger. Grace and peace to ya.

 

I've enjoyed the discussion as well and appreciate the spirit.

I'll think I'll leave anything else for later .

 

Actually, it comes down to the fact that the choice of which Bible version(s) to use is a matter of PERSONAL PREFERENCE, as no one can offer any valid evidence that any one version is better than all others.

 

Amen, Brother Robycop3! Preach it!

Uh, sorry, Ed!