I believe God keeps His word updated as He causes/allows language changes to occur. And some languages change more-rapidly than others. The language of the Waironi in South America has changed very little since outsiders discovered this people, so missionaries to them don't hafta write a new Bible for them every ten years. But the Romance languages change constantly, and I suspect Japanese and Chinese does as well. (Perhaps you can enlighten us on that, John?)
Now, can we imagine the difficulty we'd have in understanding Scripture if our only English Bible was Wycliffe's 1384 edition? I believe God caused "updated" translations to be made, and the KJV was one of them. But English has changed vastly since 1611, and I believe God has caused newer translations to be made to reflect those changes.
As for the "must learn English" notion of some KJVOs, we have the example of the various peoples' hearing Peter's preaching in their own language or dialect by the power of the Holy Spirit. I believe this proves God intends for all to hear His word in their own languages. This KJVO excuse shows the shallowness and excuse-making KJVOs employ to try to justify their non-Scriptural KJVO myth.
The Key to the KJV-Only Conundrum
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by John of Japan, Jul 1, 2016.
Page 4 of 6
-
-
Earth to Jordan. Earth to Jordan. You haven't responded to post #57 yet.
-
Some complain that the Bible original languages are dead languages.
True - But they never change!
Here is what I believe is a promise when the Lord sits upon the throne of David ruling over the kingdom of God upon the earth for 1000 years:
Zephaniah 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
OK bring on the nay-sayers! :rolleyes:
HankD -
Jordan Kurecki Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
You can get saved out of Roman Catholic commentary if it happens to mention John 3:16... But that does not make the whole things scripture.
While I agree that many translations contain portions of scripture, to assert that a whole translation can be considered scripture just because you get saved from it not true.
You can get saved from a sermon, but that doesn't mean the whole sermon is scripture. -
If we are going to discuss this very important issues, honesty will be required.
So, let's go back to what was actually said. Do you think 2 Timothy 3:15 (And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.) is wrong? Is that which is able to make you wise unto salvation scripture or not? -
Jordan Kurecki Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
Jordan Kurecki Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
It seems to me that you are the one being dishonest.
It is a simple yes or no question.
You seem to claim that anything that makes you wise unto salvation is scripture.
Please Kindly answer yes or no, is a sermon someone gets saved after hearing considered scripture.
If your answer is yes, then that just seems absurd.
If your answer is no, then you need to explain your view of scripture, because your question that you asked seemed to imply to me that you think anything that makes you wise to salvation is scripture.
If that is not the case than maybe you could explain your point.
Perhaps you are not being clear rather than me being dishonest. -
-
I never mentioned "sermons," or "a book that quotes a bible verse" or a "commentary." You did.
And, in fact, in your post #64 you show that you understand we are talking about bible translations and you even use the world "translation" to indicate what we are talking about.
Here, again, are the questions you can't seem to answer honestly.
So what part of the New King James Version do you think is not scripture? And why isn't it scripture?
What part of the American Standard Version is not scripture? And why isn't it scripture?
Do you think 2 Timothy 3:15 (And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.) is wrong? Is that bible which is able to make you wise unto salvation holy scripture or not? -
-
The KJVO myth is one of Satan's attempts to interfere with God's updating the translation of His word to reflect the changes He's brought about in English since His word was first translated into English. -
When did language changes in Hebrew and Greek stop happening?
-
-
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Sorry I missed this, brother, then after that our Internet access was down.
Meanwhile, in China the Communists made many changes, especially in the area of semantics. Many new words were introduced in line with the Communist doctrines. Then the government simplified many of the characters, driving a wedge between the mainland and other Chinese areas: Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.
Caveat: in my experience it is only a small percentage of KJVO people who think everyone should learn English. I know many who believe in Bible translation from the traditional texts. These are usually folk who care deeply about the Great Commission, but don't make a big deal out of their KJVO views. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The Greek language continued to develop, but modern Greek is really quite similar to Biblical Greek, with most of the grammar and words being the same. If you were to take Greek from me, after Greek 101-102 and 201-202 you would be able to read the Greek NT fairly easily, and perhaps even become a translator of the TR into one of the 1000s of languages which do not have a NT in their language. This would set you far above the defenders of the KJV who never do a thing to get the Bible to the world. Follow Bearing Precious Seed, which prints millions of Bibles in many languages, rather than the Dean Burgon Society which repeats the old arguments ad infinitum. (This is just a "for instance," since I don't know if you follow them or not.)
Hebrew became a dead language, but was resurrected by the Zionists. What is spoken now in Israel is essentially a modernized form of Biblical Hebrew, so that Israelis can easily read the Hebrew OT in their own modern language. Israelis would laugh at the suggestion that they needed an OT in English rather than the Hebrew it was written in. -
-
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Modern Greeks might want a new one, though an educated Greek reads the koine Greek NT fairly easily, I've heard.
Page 4 of 6