RSV, AV, NASB, NIV, ECC - all these developed during the era of the KJV. Wonder why?
Of course these, including the KJV, are not "doctrinal developments". That is absurd. When we think of DOCTRINE and its impact, we think of the Reformation and the 100 years BEFORE the AV1611. Hello?
What difference does 270 years make?
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Precepts, Feb 27, 2004.
Page 5 of 5
-
-
Precepts
"I <know> very little about the Quatrain and the Willibrord,"
A quatrain is a poetic form, like a limerick.
Willibrord is the Dutch saint Patrick.
http://www.nostradamusresearch.org/en/research%20results/functions%20Bible.htm
This is a website that links the 2 concepts to the writings of Nostradamus and the Bible.
Interesting detail the other Bible (the NBG) mentioned on the site is the one used in my church. -
"If you know your Bible history, you will have to admit the Puritans were the ones to intiate the 1611."
In a sense.The Puritans were the driving force behind the Geneva Bible and enemies of the KJB.
"So why would anyone object to the Bible God had given to the common folk?"
Actually the AV is originally an elitist Bible translated to support the interests of king James.
"Is it a confession of ignorance to believe the KJB is so hard to understand?"
I have on one of my bookshelfs, trust me it is quite complex to those not extensively trained in it's use. -
-
"Will you aklso promote the "not to my taste" thinking as the general rule to understanding the Bible?"
No, but I will promote it as a factor in choosing once Bibleversion.
"Have I ever said that anyone should not have the Bible in their native tongue?"
I have no idea, I don't know you all that well.
"How is it the KJB trnaslated into anyone's native tongue is denying them the Bible written in their own language?"
The AV translators also didn't translate from the Vulgate, they used texts written in the original tongues to get the best results. It is about having the best translation possible. Also a translation from the KJB will never have equall standing to the KJB itself. Giving the English speaking KJVO types of this world a bit of prestige I'll happily deny them if at all possible.
"Now, if we want to understand medicine, we are left with no alternative but to learn Latin, so by that reasoning, if we want to understand the Bible, we need to know the English of the KJB."
If we want to understand all the in's and outs of the Bible perfectly we must learn 3 dead languages... -
Precepts:How is it the KJB trnaslated into anyone's native tongue is denying them the Bible written in their own language? That is STUPENDOUS to think that!
Actually, it's rather silly to translate a translation when the sources from which the first translation was made are available. The poor renderings from the KJV would be carried over into the new translation. Why not make the translation from the ancient mss? Just because a particular translator knows English and Slobbovian doesn't mean he/she should render an English translation into Slobbovian except as an on-the-spot thing. For a WRITTEN version, find someone who knows the Scriptural written lingo and Slobbovian, for a DIRECT translation. Yould YOU wanna give up your direct Greek/Hebrew translations for an English translation of, say, the Luther Bible? -
Why do we need to learn three dead languages when we already know the "ins and outs" of the Bible in English? Yall are trying persistently to convince people they must learn these three dead languages to understand modern versions, that's ridiculous! The yall have to attack the KJB to try and prove your point when you really had no point atall in trying to make the KJB "mistaken or wrong", that too is ridiculous! Now you're trying to say that the KJB translated into another language won't have the same standing as the KJB itself, How's that? If it says the same thing how is it wrong and not having the same standing? That too is utterly ridiculous!
Yall are all talking in circles when all anyone has to do is read the KJB and any other Bible translated from the KJB to understand what the Lord has to say to them, but we already know that isn't the case with the "famous and best" NasV.
Translate the NasV into the Dutch and you will still come up with the same errors as in the English... and the monkey chased the weasel. -
Cranston, What "poor renderings" from the KJB? I haven't seen one yall have propigated as to justify a "poor rendering" yet. Alot of opinion espoused, but nothing is still nothing, in any language. So go back to the "best" Greek MSS and tell us all what "nothing" really means in modern English.
-
Why would anyone want to translate the New American Standard into another language? That would, indeed, be a monkey chasing a weasel.
-
No, rsr, you're wrong, the weasel would be chasing the monkey then, and God might reach out of the mulberry bush and pop the monkey for the weasel.
-
The poor KJV renderings have been repeatedly posted, Precepts, but you refuse to see the plain evidence. But let's give just one example-THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
-
-
"Why do we need to learn three dead languages when we already know the "ins and outs" of the Bible in English?"
We already know those "ins and outs" of the Bible in Dutch. We want to maintain that standard and that means going back to the original languages for each new translation. -
-
Skan I don't know how anyone "accidently" dashes another in pieces, do you? Now when you take into consideration accidentally "killing" someone and they get dashed into pieces by say a lawn mower, that could apply. But the aspect of "Thou shalt not kill " is readily understood as to kill without due reason, justifiable homocide is not "killing". "Kill" is a violent act, "murder" is best associated with "kill", but our English has altered the root meaning of kill to be to cause loss of life.
The aspect of violating the law of "Thou shalt not kill" is dealt with in Leviticus rather extensively so that no misunderstanding is actually permitted.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" -
Page 5 of 5