Question for KJVOs"like me" can we translate from.....

[Dr. Bob]

C4K - In a debate, both sides must be honest. You have asked the salient question: WHICH of the AV revisions is the PERFECT ONE from which translations can be made.

Until that is answered, I would just "snip" the rambling nonsense in posts and stop the debate. When it is answered, then a true debate may continue.

And while you're at it, find ONE VERSE that supports that God who inspired the Greek/Hebrew words ALSO inspired the AV1611 words. We would ALL become part of the "only sect" if such a verse were in the Bible.

(Hard to discuss "doctrine" when not one verse of Scripture deals with the so-called "doctrine".)

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Now, if we ask the question, "Can God use a translation from the KJV, NIV, NASV, NKJV, etc?" Of course He can - the question is "What is the best for any language group?"

 

[mcgyver]

C4K Hit the nail on the head!
My question is this: Do we truly desire to reach a particular language group with the "best" (most understandable to them) translation, or are we simply trying to enforce our (a certain) bias?

 

[Dr. Bob]

c4k - Is using the word "h*****" about the double inspiration (that the AV translators made a perfectly inspired English version, replacing the need for the Greek/Hebrew) acceptible?

That is what this thread is about. Using a perfect divinely-inspired TRANSLATION, with Anglican INTERPRETATION, in place of using the real inspired Word of God.

That is 100% "h*****", but even as Administrator on the BB I don't want to violate our policies. What do you think?

 

[robycop3]

C4K has asked a very valid question. There can only be ONE perfect. Anything equal to it hasta be an exact repro, down to the last dot.

But I learned long ago to not expect any direct answer from any KJVO. To most of them, their MYTH is more important than the TRUTH.


And I might add...WHAT STANDARD(S) DO YOU USE TO ASSIGN PERFECTION? And where's the DIVINE AUTHORITY for those standards?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Dr Bob,

I appreciate this opportunity to have an "open" moderator discussion.

As much as I may understand the feelings behind that question, I think it wise that we avoid use of that word in our debate in this forum. I fear that it may set a precedent which would require evaluation every time that word is brought up.

Better, IMHO, to leave it as banned.

 

[HankD]

I have many times.
When asked "which edition" blah, blah, blah...
I have replied. The one on my desk, the one in my truck, the one on my desktop, the one in the bathroom , the one on my nightstand, the one on the coffee table. One is Cambridge, one is Oxford, one is World Publishing 1913, two are Nelson, etc...

It is an answer dear brother, but it is a diversionary ploy because it does not specifically answer the question of which KJV Edition/Revision is THE "perfect" one.

The "ploy" aspect of this diversion can be shown by this question:

Are things which are different the same?

If no, then please tell us which is the "perfect" Word of God among the KJV revision/editions?

If yes, why then find fault with the NASB or NKJV (for instance)?

HankD

 

[azguitarist]

Lol my ""LONG NAP" of 6 and 1/2 hours is now up.
To answer the question #1.which pefectly perfect edition of the KJV must be used for translational work-due to study and prayer I have and use the Bible I believe and know is correct. As to which Bible that is I will not waste my time to give you the exact "revision" due in part to the sad fact that all You folks will do is try to say that problembs exist in the translation I use. further more those of you who claim to "be in search of the truth" or the right Bible I sugest you go back and study the Book and not books about the book.To reach the conclusion about a book in the which you are going to place faith and stand upon you must study that book. I have and the cunclusion i reach no matter which verses or proof I give will not convince you and yours.
The only thing that will convince you is if you get in the book and prove it for your selves.
Oh and one more thing,the burden of proof falls upon you folks to prove that God cant keep his word perfect.due to that beliefe you believe that God is not able ? WOW to use a human element to keep his word perfect. See Just as I said before \
we stand unfailing on a perfect salvation plan that God made and apply it to every soul regardless of the language that soul my speak.And furthermore If we all agree that we have that plan perfect in english-which we do,we automaticaly apply that perfect plan to everyone.You see the problem arises when the book upon which we base that perfect plan is said to contain errors-that is when we loose authority to speak. As far as you folks out there are not able to see gods perfection and desire thereof you will not see this question of translation the same. And just being shown a verse or verses that gives authority to the perfect word of God will never convince anyone of that fact. like I said before go study,It seems all you folks like to do is attack the KJV in every way possible and blast those who refuse to debate the issue. Signs of a debate that has been won.


#1.you will see that the attack becomes personal or towards the person instead of the question at hand
"""We would ALL become part of the "only sect" if such a verse were in the Bible"""

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by azguitarist:
Lol my ""LONG NAP" of 6 and 1/2 hours is now up.
To answer the question #1.which pefectly perfect edition of the KJV must be used for translational work-due to study and prayer I have and use the Bible I believe and know is correct. As to which Bible that is I will not waste my time to give you the exact "revision" due in part to the sad fact that all You folks will do is try to say that problembs exist in the translation I use.

Of course, same old answer - "I won't tell you which edition is perfectly perfect and its your fault that I won't tell you. You all need to just accept what I say and quit pestering me for a real answer."

Another one bites the dust.

 

[azguitarist]

What?
lol
I did \NOT say what C4K just paraprased me as saying. won't tell you which edition is perfectly perfect and its your fault that I won't tell you. You all need to just accept what I say and quit pestering me for a real answer."
see not a single word was used to say that just go back and read it.

 

[azguitarist]

furthermore he has lost the debate due to the fact he has changed his attack upon the question at hand into a personal attack,\""""Of course, same old answer - "I won't tell you which edition is perfectly perfect and its your fault that I won't tell you. You all need to just accept what I say and quit pestering me for a real answer."

Another one bites the dust.

 

[azguitarist]

As if this person fails to live up to an ability to answer a question. Oh well,Back to the top.

CAN WE TRANSLATE FROM THE KJV?

 

[azguitarist]

I am beginin

to think this should have been a pole....LOL

 

[mcgyver]

azguitarist:

In the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, greetings my brother.

I opened with this salutation intentionally to remind us all that we are brothers and sisters in the Lord.

You started this thread with a legitimate question, however as is so often the case, feelings have gotten in the way of intellectual debate.

Let me ask you then: Why, in your opinion is the KJV the "most perfect" English Bible available, and do you believe that we are better off translating into foreign languages from the KJV. If so, then why?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

That has been answered over and over - of course we can, just like we can the NIV, NKJV, NASB, GB, MKJV, ESV, HCSB, KJV1611, KJV1762, KJV1769, Luther's Bible, Louis II French Bible, Almeida Portugese Bible, etc, etc.

Should we? That is the real question isn't it, since we have yet to be told which edition of the KJV is perfectly perfect.

I contend, as you must have missed [ http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2209/6.html ], that it is not the best. The best is to give every language a translation from the languages in which God gave His Word.

[ March 03, 2005, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[mcgyver]

P.S.
"I gots ta larn ta type faster"....Wow!

 

[manchester]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
FWIW; We have THE EXACT SAME ISSUE in the KJV.

Thee, Thou, Thy, Thine, Ye, You

vs

You

Kinda poor quality these days, according to your example! LOL

In HIS service;
Jim

True, Jim. But is your position consistent? With KJV v. MV, you believe this problem is significant. Do you believe this is not a problem when translating English into Spanish and vice versa?

 

[James_Newman]

The question was originally posed to KJVO's, so to drag it off topic to debate whether or not anyone who doesn't believe we can have the word of God in English to begin with thinks we can translate another bible from the KJV is kind of stupid, don't you think?

 

[manchester]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robycop3:
C4K: I guess I have to wait till guitarist wakes up to find out which pefectly perfect edition of the KJV must be used for translational work

Ya might hafta take a long nap. The KJVO will simply NOT give a straight answer to a straight question.

__________________________________________________

I have many times.
When asked "which edition" blah, blah, blah...
I have replied. The one on my desk, the one in my truck, the one on my desktop, the one in the bathroom , the one on my nightstand, the one on the coffee table. One is Cambridge, one is Oxford, one is World Publishing 1913, two are Nelson, etc...


In HIS service;
jim </font>[/QUOTE]And by doing so, you contradict yourself. By saying that all of the modern version known as the KJV are all God's Word, you have no final authority.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by James_Newman:
The question was originally posed to KJVO's, so to drag it off topic to debate whether or not anyone who doesn't believe we can have the word of God in English to begin with thinks we can translate another bible from the KJV is kind of stupid, don't you think?

Good point - however I am a KJVO #2 according to the definitions in this forum.