PDA

View Full Version : KJV Onlyist's?



JordanW
May 9th 2008, 05:20 PM
Recently I've been participating in this other forum that is for KJV-Onlyist's. I have no idea why I joined there, but recently I've been trying to get them to be more open minded. So I thought why were are at it, why not express out opinions about being a KJV-Onlyist. What do you all think about this?:hmm:

HisLeast
May 9th 2008, 05:26 PM
They have some very good critiques of post-KJV translations, thats why I usually listen to what they have to say. However, as our language continues to progress and change, its getting harder and harder to understand the KJV, so I don't necessary agree with their hardline stance.

daughter
May 9th 2008, 05:26 PM
This is going to get so nasty! I'll jump in before it turns bonkers. Actually, this forum tends to manage things better, so maybe it won't go pear shaped, but just in case, you're warned!

I personally like the KJV. I don't think it is the only translation that has any merit. Lot's of people don't like that style of English. I was raised in a literary household, and my Dad read me Milton and Shakespeare for bedtime stories, so the language seems perfectly natural to me, and I have to remember that for most people it isn't. I've heard so many people complain about it that I can only assume they're telling the truth, and it genuinely is hard for the average modern reader.

That being the case, read a more modern translation. I much prefer word for word translations over thought for thought translations, and I'd go for a word for word any time.

The biggest problem I have with the KJV only people is that some of them seem to think that the KJV had a special revelation from God, over and above the original Greek and Hebrew texts. Somebody has told me that if I ever (through God's grace) find myself translating the bible into a new tongue then I shouldn't bother translate from the Hebrew or Greek, but from the KJV. That to me seems to be going a bit far...

karenoka27
May 9th 2008, 05:32 PM
I love KJV! I memorize from this version. When I am reading through the Bible I will read NIV so I don't have to "think" so much.
But I am a KJVer!

HisLeast
May 9th 2008, 05:34 PM
Actually, this forum tends to manage things better, so maybe it won't go pear shaped, but just in case, you're warned!


:rofl: "Pear shaped" ? :rofl:

JordanW
May 9th 2008, 05:34 PM
I love KJV! I memorize from this version. When I am reading through the Bible I will read NIV so I don't have to "think" so much.
But I am a KJVer!But is that the only version that you believe is the true Word of God?

JordanW
May 9th 2008, 05:36 PM
This is going to get so nasty! I'll jump in before it turns bonkers. Actually, this forum tends to manage things better, so maybe it won't go pear shaped, but just in case, you're warned!

I personally like the KJV. I don't think it is the only translation that has any merit. Lot's of people don't like that style of English. I was raised in a literary household, and my Dad read me Milton and Shakespeare for bedtime stories, so the language seems perfectly natural to me, and I have to remember that for most people it isn't. I've heard so many people complain about it that I can only assume they're telling the truth, and it genuinely is hard for the average modern reader.

That being the case, read a more modern translation. I much prefer word for word translations over thought for thought translations, and I'd go for a word for word any time.

The biggest problem I have with the KJV only people is that some of them seem to think that the KJV had a special revelation from God, over and above the original Greek and Hebrew texts. Somebody has told me that if I ever (through God's grace) find myself translating the bible into a new tongue then I shouldn't bother translate from the Hebrew or Greek, but from the KJV. That to me seems to be going a bit far...
That's exactly what is bothering me too! They just tell me that it is God's inspired Word, and I ask them, so God only gave his inspired Word to them or what? I also asked why God chose the 1600's to produce a Bible, and not now.

The Parson
May 9th 2008, 05:44 PM
But is that the only version that you believe is the true Word of God?Here is where we have to deal with personal conviction Jordon. I believe with all my heart the King James is the only version of God's Word in the English language. This is a personal conviction because of my distrust of the manuscripts the newer versions are created from.

Matt14
May 9th 2008, 05:44 PM
There are going to be a ton of responses to this thread, and some of them may get rough. But, I'll throw my two cents in early:

The KJV translation is not the only good translation. I can find at least as many translation errors in the KJV as any other version. There are some glaring errors in the KJV. However, I'll take some of the KJV errors over some of the NIV errors any day. :D

Alright, I'm done before the 'maters start flying.

-

daughter
May 9th 2008, 05:45 PM
There are places were the KJV is different from the best original texts, and when that happens I prefer to believe that the original authors are more reliable. But you see, I don't think it matters tremendously if there are slight differences in some areas. Nothing doctrinal, so far as I know, is affected... but what does get me is that they say the English translation is better than the Textus Receptus from which it was translated. And if you don't accept that, then you're rejecting God's word!

JordanW
May 9th 2008, 05:47 PM
I've even heard that some of the verses that were translated into other translations are more accurate, can anyone elaborate more on this?

Theophilus
May 9th 2008, 06:01 PM
From the original preface to the 1611 KJV Bible, from the translators to the reader:

Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.]

Makes you wonder how many KJV-onliests have ever read the preface. Of course, not all KJV Bibles have the full preface anymore (only one of my Bibles does)...but it seems to me that the original translators recognized the value of comparing translations.

Me? I love the KJV, and it's the only one I memorize in...and if I had to be on an island, it's the one I'd want, because I love the way it's written...

...but it's not what I typically use for a study Bible. ;)

grit
May 9th 2008, 06:26 PM
This is something I've researched for the better part of my life. There's quite a lot that goes into consideration of the matter.
I think one of the keys to a proper understanding of the dynamics involved is to look at the first recorded sin of humans, and see what's involved in that fall from grace, apparently without our first parents having a Bible text from which to reference God's words.

Words are important, and careful communication through completely understandable language is too. I'm one to believe that in that first fall into sin, Adam and Eve both knew exactly and thoroughly what God meant through His communications with them - there was a perfect understanding, even if nothing was written down - their understanding was in the heart.

No, that fall into sin was not a matter of not knowing what God's will was or somehow being confused over a wording of text or communication in the symbols of language. That fall into sin was a matter of decption and a deliberate twisting of God's words in the heart of the matter. Eve was deceived to see what she had been misled to want to see - her desires were led astray to pit a seeming good against an actual good. She saw that the "tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise" (Gen. 3:6, KJV), and so disregarded what she clearly understood as being God's will and Word.

Now, we, as Christians (KJV only or otherwise), greatly admire having God's Word available to us in a written record; but it is God's Word in our heart that is the key to following and understanding God's will.

I've met plenty of people who can admirably quote whole passages of Scripture. Many are the actors and preachers through the ages who have regularly quoted the texts. However, many of these same individuals have readily demonstrated, just as did Satan and those deceived by him, that their heart is far from following the will of God, even when they know and understand what that will is.

If there is a mistake in clinging too tightly to any version of the written word, it is in placing too great an importance on the symbols of language over and against God's Word written in the heart. It is a glory to have an acurate and written record of God's Word and a clear expression of His will for us, in the symbols of language we can understand. It is important to have a written gage or canon as a guide. However, if our reverence for such interfers with or displaces God himself in our heart, and that guide by His Holy Spirit that marks us as belonging to Christ, then we have begun to exchange the greater for the lesser, and that which can indeed be twisted and changed for that which is eternal and unchangable.

If God had willed for us to have and rely wholly upon such written symbols rather than God himself, then He would have preserved the original writings and carvings on stone tablets for our use today. This is what many Muslims claim for the Koran, and it leads to a displacement of God in favour of a recording of God.

We might enjoy and value an MP3, but it is not of the same value as having the original music ever present with us in the full display of its personallity and detailed nuance.

Semi-tortured
May 9th 2008, 06:32 PM
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e9/Pogomako/can.jpg

Reynolds357
May 9th 2008, 06:38 PM
I think that there are good modern translations. I also think that there are several modern translations that are nothing but heresy. TNIV is one of them. This translation is heretical and it really saddened me that Zondervan would publish it.
What I find comical in the KJV only camp is their rejection of the NKJV. The NKJV in no way disharmonizes with the authorized KJV. Why this is comical is that the KJV only camp uses a revised KJV. I have only seen the 1611 KJV used by one KJV only advocate that I know.
It is comical to me that 99% of the KJV only camp use 1850, or the authorized version. They say they want the "original," but they use the version that is three revisions old. 1611, 1762, and 1769 are all more "original" than 1850. I guess my question to any KJV only advicates is why do you use the 1850 and not the 1611? My next question is why were the revisions up until 1850 acceptable to you, and any made after 1850 not accepted?
I love the KJV, and do 95% of my study from it, but I am not dogmatically attached to it.
I have a version of the KJV that has no official name. In this Bible, the revisionist simply updated the "Thees" and "Thous" and a couple of other archaic words to their modern English equivalent. I know several of my KJV only friends that still have a problem with it. Absolutely no meaning was changed, but they still consider it a "modern translation" and they believe all modern translations are "bad." I really would like to understand why the KJV is considered "sacred" by so many. It is not the oldest English translation. There are at least two older English Bibles that I know of and possibly more. Very limited manuscripts were available at the time of its translation. Could someone please enlighten me why they are so dogmatically attached to the KJV? It is a great Bible, but what makes "IT" the only English bible worthy of our use?

IamBill
May 9th 2008, 06:39 PM
My KJV was my First, and is "home" to me. Others do not 'feel right'.

I would welcome a version that was proved "more" correct, but I fear "tradition" has invaded and invades more and more as it gets "easier to read".

Understanding comes from above, not defining from below.

I am interested in knowing any/all proven mistakes in it though
:)

theabaud
May 9th 2008, 06:45 PM
I think that there are good modern translations. I also think that there are several modern translations that are nothing but heresy. TNIV is one of them. This translation is heretical and it really saddened me that Zondervan would publish it.
What I find comical in the KJV only camp is their rejection of the NKJV. The NKJV in no way disharmonizes with the authorized KJV. Why this is comical is that the KJV only camp uses a revised KJV. I have only seen the 1611 KJV used by one KJV only advocate that I know.
It is comical to me that 99% of the KJV only camp use 1850, or the authorized version. They say they want the "original," but they use the version that is three revisions old. 1611, 1762, and 1769 are all more "original" than 1850. I guess my question to any KJV only advicates is why do you use the 1850 and not the 1611? My next question is why were the revisions up until 1850 acceptable to you, and any made after 1850 not accepted?I have not seen any differences other than spelling in the revised versions. The omission of the apocrypha is the the only significant change that I know of. The NKJV has used some less accurate "simplifications" in places and in others favors the Alexandrian Translations. There is more to this than what the translators wrote in the introduciton to their book.

Matt14
May 9th 2008, 06:46 PM
I am interested in knowing any/all proven mistakes in it though
:)

Well, just a simple one:

Act 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.

There was no "easter" at this time for sure. It is a mistranslation of "passover."

As Albert Barnes comments:

Intending after Easter - There never was a more absurd or unhappy translation than this. The original is simply after the Passover (μετὰ τὸ πάσχα meta to pascha. The word “Easter” now denotes the festival observed by many Christian churches in honor of the resurrection of the Saviour. But the original has no reference to that, nor is there the slightest evidence that any such festival was observed at the time when this book was written. The translation is not only unhappy, as it does not convey at all the meaning of the original, but because it may contribute to foster an opinion that such a festival was observed in the time of the apostles. The word “Easter” is of Saxon origin, and is supposed to be derived from “Eostre,” the goddess of Love, or the Venus of the North, in honor of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors in the month of April (Webster). Since this festival coincided with the Passover of the Jews, and with the feast observed by Christians in honor of the resurrection of Christ, the name came to be used to denote the latter. In the old Anglo-Saxon service-books the term “Easter” is used frequently to translate the word “Passover.” In the translation by Wycliffe, the word “paske,” that is, “Passover,” is used. But Tyndale and Coverdale used the word “Easter,” and hence, it has very improperly crept into our King James Version.

I don't want to attack the KJV. I like it. But we must realize it is not perfect, because it was translated by men.

-

merjorg
May 9th 2008, 06:47 PM
Heck of a post, grit! No matter what comes out of this thread, I'm going to go back and read your post again at the end.

I, personally, feel God speaking to me through all of the versions that I read (KVJ, NKJV, NLT, NIV, Message). When I read a chapter or verse from one version and then turn to another version and read the same chapter or verse, it seems to only enhance what I understood from the first version. I can't say that I ever felt that it detracted from what I had read in the first version (nor can I say that it confused me). Not saying that if I only had a KJV my bible reading wouldn't be effective, just saying that I may be reading the KJV and then turn to the Message bible and read the same chapter or verse and sometimes a light bulb goes on. I mean really...I've had some WOW moments while going back and forth between translations...breakthrough moments where I go, "Thank you, Lord for showing me that!"

His response? -------> :D "No sweat, my child!"

IamBill
May 9th 2008, 06:57 PM
Well, just a simple one:

Act 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.

There was no "easter" at this time for sure. It is a mistranslation of "passover."
------
I don't want to attack the KJV. I like it. But we must realize it is not perfect, because it was translated by men.

-

As all were ;) thanks

Is that all though ?
:hmm:

RobbieP
May 9th 2008, 06:58 PM
I'm a King James girl.....although I have NIV for bible studies since most folks in my church use the NIV.....

The biggest difference I notice is KJV is often more passionate or extreme in the verse...best way I know how to say it....NIV has a softer approach.....
EX:
Josh 6:21] And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
Josh 6:21 They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in itómen and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

That's my thoughts- a few times I saw where NIV actually had a different meaning...but I can't think of where...I'll look...

Matt14
May 9th 2008, 07:01 PM
As all were ;) thanks

Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying. All translations have their errors. Some are worse than others. The KJV is far from the worst, IMO.


Is that all though ?
:hmm:

Do you agree that is an error?

That was just an example. There are many other problems. But, I do not want to bash and rant on the KJV. That is not the purpose of my posts, so I'll just suggest a quick google on something like "King James Version errors."

-

JordanW
May 9th 2008, 07:05 PM
Heck of a post, grit! No matter what comes out of this thread, I'm going to go back and read your post again at the end.

I, personally, feel God speaking to me through all of the versions that I read (KVJ, NKJV, NLT, NIV, Message). When I read a chapter or verse from one version and then turn to another version and read the same chapter or verse, it seems to only enhance what I understood from the first version. I can't say that I ever felt that it detracted from what I had read in the first version (nor can I say that it confused me). Not saying that if I only had a KJV my bible reading wouldn't be effective, just saying that I may be reading the KJV and then turn to the Message bible and read the same chapter or verse and sometimes a light bulb goes on. I mean really...I've had some WOW moments while going back and forth between translations...breakthrough moments where I go, "Thank you, Lord for showing me that!"

His response? -------> :D "No sweat, my child!"
I totally agree here. What happens, is that I'll read something in the KJV translation, then I'll turn to my NKJV and then I'll totally understand what the verse means, thus making my knowledge in the Lord greater. :)

Reynolds357
May 9th 2008, 07:17 PM
Heck of a post, grit! No matter what comes out of this thread, I'm going to go back and read your post again at the end.

I, personally, feel God speaking to me through all of the versions that I read (KVJ, NKJV, NLT, NIV, Message). When I read a chapter or verse from one version and then turn to another version and read the same chapter or verse, it seems to only enhance what I understood from the first version. I can't say that I ever felt that it detracted from what I had read in the first version (nor can I say that it confused me). Not saying that if I only had a KJV my bible reading wouldn't be effective, just saying that I may be reading the KJV and then turn to the Message bible and read the same chapter or verse and sometimes a light bulb goes on. I mean really...I've had some WOW moments while going back and forth between translations...breakthrough moments where I go, "Thank you, Lord for showing me that!"

His response? -------> :D "No sweat, my child!"

The only thing to keep in mind with NLT and Message is that neither are translations. They are both paraphrases of a translation. They are more akin to commentary than they are to scripture. Having said that, I use both of them. I use them as commentary, not as scripture.

IamBill
May 9th 2008, 07:19 PM
Do you agree that is an error?
-

Indisputably !
;)

Matt14
May 9th 2008, 07:22 PM
Indisputably !
;)
I agree. And in my opinion, one error in translation is enough to show that the KJV is not "perfect."

For the record, I use the NKJV for my study and preaching. I trust the TR and MT textual sources more so than the CT.

-

IamBill
May 9th 2008, 07:31 PM
I agree. And in my opinion, one error in translation is enough to show that the KJV is not "perfect."

For the record, I use the NKJV for my study and preaching. I trust the TR and MT textual sources more so than the CT.

-
I'll just refer you back to post 16.

We are nearing a point of derailment here
no reply necessary :)

The Parson
May 9th 2008, 07:33 PM
So what error? Just curious...

Matt14
May 9th 2008, 07:39 PM
So what error? Just curious...
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1633300&postcount=18

-

merjorg
May 9th 2008, 08:29 PM
The only thing to keep in mind with NLT and Message is that neither are translations. They are both paraphrases of a translation. They are more akin to commentary than they are to scripture. Having said that, I use both of them. I use them as commentary, not as scripture.

When you read these "commentaries", do you feel fed? Do you feel that God is speaking to you or do you just feel like you're reading a good Billy Graham book?

I guess that's where I try to make the distinction...is it filling me up? Do I feel that I'm hearing from God? Even while reading the Message, I must say that I do.

But, I think the point has been made...it's certainly a personal thing. Doesn't mean anyone is "right".

Reynolds357
May 9th 2008, 08:44 PM
When you read these "commentaries", do you feel fed? Do you feel that God is speaking to you or do you just feel like you're reading a good Billy Graham book?

I guess that's where I try to make the distinction...is it filling me up? Do I feel that I'm hearing from God? Even while reading the Message, I must say that I do.

But, I think the point has been made...it's certainly a personal thing. Doesn't mean anyone is "right".

Opinion of the people making the paraphrase is written into the scripture. They have written their opinions into scripture. It is not bad, as long as you do not treat the text as inspired.

ProjectPeter
May 9th 2008, 09:02 PM
The only thing to keep in mind with NLT and Message is that neither are translations. They are both paraphrases of a translation. They are more akin to commentary than they are to scripture. Having said that, I use both of them. I use them as commentary, not as scripture.Just a correction. The Living Bible is the paraphrase. The New Living Translation is a translation although they do take quite a bit of liberty... especially in the updated version. The first version was the better but even it was a little to lose in the translation for most Bible purist.

JordanW
May 9th 2008, 09:05 PM
I was going to say...I thought the NLT was a translation, and it is.

Reynolds357
May 9th 2008, 09:05 PM
Just a correction. The Living Bible is the paraphrase. The New Living Translation is a translation although they do take quite a bit of liberty... especially in the updated version. The first version was the better but even it was a little to lose in the translation for most Bible purist.

Tyndale claims the NLT is a "translation." It is not. It is still a paraphrase with all the opinions of the original still remaining. The NLT still has opinions that are just that, opinions. They have no support in manuscript.

merjorg
May 9th 2008, 09:08 PM
Opinion of the people making the paraphrase is written into the scripture. They have written their opinions into scripture. It is not bad, as long as you do not treat the text as inspired.

Thanks for the response, reynolds!

Interesting stuff. I'm not sure I quite understand how KJV and NIV (translated by man) don't have some form of translator opinion, while the NLT does have human opinion. When I read the NIV versus the NLT, I wouldn't be able to decipher where one was a translation and the other was an opinion. They seem to read very, very similar.

Having said that, I can see how if new versions continue to sprout and grow out of existing ones, eventually we're looking at a watered down word.

It seems important that any one version be translated from the original texts. If KJV is translated from the originals and updated KJV's are translated from originals and NIV as well, then that's good. But if we're then creating new version by looking only at another translation (instead of the original texts), that's where the erosion could start to happen.

merjorg
May 9th 2008, 09:17 PM
OK, I missed a few posts while I was replying.

I guess the translators are taking the liberty of not translating "word for word". The versions become opinions of what they THINK it might sound like in today's "modern language". Makes sense.

I do see how the more liberty a translator takes could have bad results, because the human element becomes greater, but even in a word-for-word translation...like KJV...each word still had to be translated using the word that the translators THOUGHT was the best translation.

OK, I'm going back to school to learn Greek! :idea:

ProjectPeter
May 9th 2008, 09:45 PM
Tyndale claims the NLT is a "translation." It is not. It is still a paraphrase with all the opinions of the original still remaining. The NLT still has opinions that are just that, opinions. They have no support in manuscript.
Well I wouldn't argue that it is a good translation. But it isn't nearly as loose as the paraphrase although as I stated... too loose for me with being a translation.

Buck shot
May 10th 2008, 12:19 AM
Do you agree that is an error?
NO, it's a translation


That was just an example. There are many other problems. But, I do not want to bash and rant on the KJV. That is not the purpose of my posts, so I'll just suggest a quick google on something like "King James Version errors."
-
Now that's something to search for, errors. Why don't we spend out time wisely and do a google search for truths? :lol:

As you can tell, I'm a KJVer! I have multiple translations and commentaries (viewed in almost the same light) and then I have the KJV.

Matt14
May 10th 2008, 12:25 AM
Buck shot, if you will read back over my posts in this thread, you will be able to follow the flow of this conversation.


NO, it's a translation

We were talking about translation errors. And there are indeed some of those in the KJV.


Now that's something to search for, errors. Why don't we spend out time wisely and do a google search for truths? :lol:

I was suggesting he do a search, because I don't make it a point to bash the KJV.


As you can tell, I'm a KJVer! I have multiple translations and commentaries (viewed in almost the same light) and then I have the KJV.

We all have our opinions. No one is going to miss any important doctrines by reading the KJV.

There are only a few translations that I consider important: KJV, ASV, NASB, and NKJV.

The ESV is good. The NIV I do not care for at all because too much doctrinal bias was injected into the process.

I don't mind anyone being a "KJV onlyist." It's when they start saying it is the only "God approved" translation for English speaking people that I raise objections.

God bless!

-

-

Athanasius
May 10th 2008, 12:29 AM
I study out of the KJV and ESV. When people need to have the Bible explained to them, that's when I use the NIV. I also keep the NKJV and the NASB close by. But as far as language goes, gotta stick with eh KJV. Love old Englisc.

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 12:38 AM
I study out of the KJV and ESV. When people need to have the Bible explained to them, that's when I use the NIV. I also keep the NKJV and the NASB close by. But as far as language goes, gotta stick with eh KJV. Love old Englisc.
Ha! You can't even spell it! :lol:

Athanasius
May 10th 2008, 12:41 AM
Ha! You can't even spell it! :lol:

Harharhar! Might wanna check out how the spelled English in old Englisc ;)

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 12:41 AM
Ha! You can't even spell it! :lol:
Here's the deal. Those who have a problem with King James Only folks... don't go to their websites nor go to their churches. If the problem is that deep with you then I dare say the problem is likely more on your end than theirs. Now... as to Message Boards... if a King James Only person comes here then there will be a wide variety of opinions. The regular folks around here that are King James Only recognize that... respect that... and there you go. They share their opinion and others share back. But if I went to their website and tried to convince them otherwise... that's sort of me beng a jerk. Why bother? The King James Bible is a good Bible. Nothing at all wrong with it and if I had to pick a top three... it is in there. So I'll say this... if a person is reading their Bible and it is King James ... then you are looking at a happy camper in me. If they are living by what they read in their King James Bible... then you are looking at a happier camper in me and and even happier God. So there you go in all honesty.

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 12:42 AM
Harharhar! Might wanna check out how the spelled English in old Englisc ;)
Nah... they just didn't know how to spell yet. ;) Sort of like ensample. They didn't realize that X was actually usable back then. :lol:

Athanasius
May 10th 2008, 12:46 AM
Nah... they just didn't know how to spell yet. ;) Sort of like ensample. They didn't realize that X was actually usable back then. :lol:

They really should have enquired more into X :p

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 12:47 AM
They really should have enquired more into X :p
No doubt! :lol:

karenoka27
May 10th 2008, 12:53 AM
But is that the only version that you believe is the true Word of God?
I didn't say that. I think the version/translation that is the most true would be the Hebrew/Greek Translation.

I also like in some cases the NASB.

I just prefer KJV for memorizing, that's all. I like saying "th"
"thus saith the Lord...";)

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 12:55 AM
I didn't say that. I think the version/translation that is the most true would be the Hebrew/Greek Translation.

I also like in some cases the NASB.

I just prefer KJV for memorizing, that's all. I like saying "th"
"thus saith the Lord...";)
My opinion (along with MANY scholars) is that the most accurate word for word translation, although doesn't flow as well as the King James, is the NASB (first edition). The updated missed that mark. My second favorite... would likely be the King James although it does take a Strong's next to you for some of the words unless one grew up with it and has already gotten used to it (I did). Third... believe it or not would be the Holman Christian Standard. Not too bad and they really did leave out a lot of doctrinally opinionated text. If a person wants to drive me TOTALLY NUTS... the NIV is the ticket. :lol:

2 Peter 2:20
May 10th 2008, 12:55 AM
Buck shot, if you will read back over my posts in this thread, you will be able to follow the flow of this conversation.



We were talking about translation errors. And there are indeed some of those in the KJV.



I was suggesting he do a search, because I don't make it a point to bash the KJV.



We all have our opinions. No one is going to miss any important doctrines by reading the KJV.

There are only a few translations that I consider important: KJV, ASV, NASB, and NKJV.

The ESV is good. The NIV I do not care for at all because too much doctrinal bias was injected into the process.

I don't mind anyone being a "KJV onlyist." It's when they start saying it is the only "God approved" translation for English speaking people that I raise objections.

God bless!

-

-
What doctrinal bais in the NIV are you referring to?

2 Peter 2:20
May 10th 2008, 12:58 AM
My opinion (along with MANY scholars) is that the most acurate word for word translation, although doesn't flow as well as the King James, is the NASB (first edition). The updated missed that mark.

So I ask the question...

Which gives us a better understanding of scripture?
1) A word for word
2) A phrase for phrase
3) Or the combination of the 2

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 12:59 AM
What doctrinal bais in the NIV are you referring to?
It leans very Southern Baptist - Reformed... although in fairness... likely more 3 and a half point Calvinism. ;) THe Reformed Bible of choice is generally the ESV which is very much leaning that direction. Hyper-Calvinist I figure ADORE the ESV. :lol:

Athanasius
May 10th 2008, 01:00 AM
Is it still possible to get a first edition NASB?

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 01:01 AM
So I ask the question...

Which gives us a better understanding of scripture?
1) A word for word
2) A phrase for phrase
3) Or the combination of the 2
Word for Word when one is read to eat meat. Both for one just getting started. Mind you... tis my opinion anyway for what it is worth.

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 01:02 AM
Is it still possible to get a first edition NASB?
Sure... you just have to look around. Most of your major bookstores still have them and they are still widely in print. On-Line... easy to find. You just have to pay attention. They thought about taking them out of print but their was a stink raised and they chilled with that plan. If they ever do... I am heading to the bookstore and breaking my bank. :lol:

Brother Mark
May 10th 2008, 01:04 AM
Sure... you just have to look around. Most of your major bookstores still have them and they are still widely in print. On-Line... easy to find. You just have to pay attention. They thought about taking them out of print but their was a stink raised and they chilled with that plan. If they ever do... I am heading to the bookstore and breaking my bank. :lol:

NASB is my favorite translation as well. Grew up physically on a KJV. Grew up spiritually on a first edition NASB.

2 Peter 2:20
May 10th 2008, 01:05 AM
It leans very Southern Baptist - Reformed... although in fairness... likely more 3 and a half point Calvinism. ;) THe Reformed Bible of choice is generally the ESV which is very much leaning that direction. Hyper-Calvinist I figure ADORE the ESV. :lol:

I believe that I can hear the Southern Baptist's screaming! Most that I know would rather die than read from the NIV.;)

Examples??

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 01:09 AM
NASB is my favorite translation as well. Grew up physically on a KJV. Grew up spiritually on a first edition NASB.It will always have a love for the KJV. I didn't have any thing else until I was probably 16. I remember when the NASB and the NIV came out. The NIV was the rage because the NASB just didn't flow well when read. But yeah... The NASB did take first place as far as translation when doing all my Greek and Hebrew searching and stuff. It is very accurate and certainly the one I use the most. Mind you... I still have and have always had my trusty King James and I still use it. My problem is that I give them away and then have to go buy another and then color code it anew and it keeps one steady busy between that and doing this here on the boards. :lol:

karenoka27
May 10th 2008, 01:09 AM
My opinion (along with MANY scholars) is that the most accurate word for word translation, although doesn't flow as well as the King James, is the NASB (first edition). The updated missed that mark. My second favorite... would likely be the King James although it does take a Strong's next to you for some of the words unless one grew up with it and has already gotten used to it (I did). Third... believe it or not would be the Holman Christian Standard. Not too bad and they really did leave out a lot of doctrinally opinionated text. If a person wants to drive me TOTALLY NUTS... the NIV is the ticket. :lol:

My Strong's is as worn out as my first, second and third Bible...

NIV drives me nuts too, especially when I'm leading a ladies Bible study and someone reads from it...then I have to take time to talk about what "they really meant to say..":rolleyes:

But I did confess that I will use it when just reading through the Bible and I don't have to think so much...just enjoy the adventure!

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 01:11 AM
I believe that I can hear the Southern Baptist's screaming! Most that I know would rather die than read from the NIV.;)

Examples??Dude... once upon a time before corporate buyouts... Zondervans was a Southern Baptist born and bred company. :lol: And no... I am not going to tear down even the NIV as much as I dislike it. I'll leave that to someone else that feels the desire to do that. My personal belief and I'll stand on it from here to eternity... God will use even that Bible to save a man's soul. I gotta figure He is bigger than a translation that I don't particularly care for.

Brother Mark
May 10th 2008, 01:11 AM
It will always have a love for the KJV. I didn't have any thing else until I was probably 16. I remember when the NASB and the NIV came out. The NIV was the rage because the NASB just didn't flow well when read. But yeah... The NASB did take first place as far as translation when doing all my Greek and Hebrew searching and stuff. It is very accurate and certainly the one I use the most. Mind you... I still have and have always had my trusty King James and I still use it. My problem is that I give them away and then have to go buy another and then color code it anew and it keeps one steady busy between that and doing this here on the boards. :lol:

I can only imagine. I was a very staunch KJV only guy early on. Then I met someone that used the NASB that had more power in their life than anyone I had ever met. He really loved people. He looked like the Jesus of the bible to me. When I saw that, I figured the NASB must be nourishing him pretty good. More than anything else, his testimony led me to leave my KJV only belief system behind. Sure glad I did.

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 01:12 AM
My Strong's is as worn out as my first, second and third Bible...

NIV drives me nuts too, especially when I'm leading a ladies Bible study and someone reads from it...then I have to take time to talk about what "they really meant to say..":rolleyes:

But I did confess that I will use it when just reading through the Bible and I don't have to think so much...just enjoy the adventure!
Yeah... it is a bit watered down for my liking.

Brother Mark
May 10th 2008, 01:14 AM
My Strong's is as worn out as my first, second and third Bible...

NIV drives me nuts too, especially when I'm leading a ladies Bible study and someone reads from it...then I have to take time to talk about what "they really meant to say..":rolleyes:

But I did confess that I will use it when just reading through the Bible and I don't have to think so much...just enjoy the adventure!

I'm with you on that. If I am reading for the purpose of learning, or to study, get me my NASB with a KJV close by. But if I am just going to do some "light" reading, then an NIV, or NLT, or even the living bible or some paraphrase will do. But that is only an occasional thing.

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 01:16 AM
I can only imagine. I was a very staunch KJV only guy early on. Then I met someone that used the NASB that had more power in their life than anyone I had ever met. He really loved people. He looked like the Jesus of the bible to me. When I saw that, I figured the NASB must be nourishing him pretty good. More than anything else, his testimony led me to leave my KJV only belief system behind. Sure glad I did.
For those that don't know... I am fixing to start working (as soon as the logistics is worked out) with a full blown King James Only pastor. I'll preach and teach out of the King James Bible when I preach and teach there. There is nothing at all wrong with the King James Bible although we can argue a poor choice of wording here and there... and most folks could and do that very thing with most EVERY translation.

It doesn't matter a lick about the translation a person uses or even prefers. Even if they think all other perverted. If the fruit of that person is good fruit then you know... I'll study right there with you no matter your translation preference. I have known some King James Only folks that would make satan himself look like a choir boy. But I have known some of the most loving and gentle and God fearing holy men that would never read anything but that version. So hey... translations are nothing to me. Tell you what... if you are a NIV only church and want me to preach with that stipulation... invite me and watch. ;)

The Parson
May 10th 2008, 01:19 AM
http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1633300&postcount=18

-Matt, it wasn't known as Easter at that time perse! In that you are correct. Not sure I would call that an error though because the celebration of fertility was already a calendar event. A specific day. Whereas the Passover had several days to it if you get my meaning. To me it makes a more precise meaning, pointing more to a precise date.

Not even that the translators of the King James were trying to give glory to another besides God, but a place to "point to" on the calender. It would be the same as a farmer telling you that he planted in the Spring Equinox or for a fisherman to tell you that he made his biggest catch on the first full moon of the year. It just so happens that this was the time on the calender that our Savior Arose!

Also, Luke was a physician, a man of much knowledge & learning. He knew it was right thing for him to point to a specific time that was known to everybody of the day! The starting of Passover was a few days before the time of Easter, therefore it wouldn't be as precise to point to that time on the calender! There is more than one day in the time of the Passover! I'm not sure why he didn't say something like "the third day of passover"! Except that Luke, being a gentile, would relate more to the day of Estros as I believe it was called than he would the passover.

Just a thought.

Brother Mark
May 10th 2008, 01:20 AM
For those that don't know... I am fixing to start working (as soon as the logistics is worked out) with a full blown King James Only pastor. I'll preach and teach out of the King James Bible when I preach and teach there. There is nothing at all wrong with the King James Bible although we can argue a poor choice of wording here and there... and most folks could and do that very thing with most EVERY translation.

It doesn't matter a lick about the translation a person uses or even prefers. Even if they think all other perverted. If the fruit of that person is good fruit then you know... I'll study right there with you no matter your translation preference. I have known some King James Only folks that would make satan himself look like a choir boy. But I have known some of the most loving and gentle and God fearing holy men that would never read anything but that version. So hey... translations are nothing to me. Tell you what... if you are a NIV only church and want me to preach with that stipulation... invite me and watch. ;)

Never meant to insinuate anything at all is wrong with the KJV. Just glad I no longer hold to the belief that ONLY the KJV is a worthy translation.

As for translation, yea, I would preach out of just about any of em.

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 01:23 AM
Never meant to insinuate anything at all is wrong with the KJV. Just glad I no longer hold to the belief that ONLY the KJV is a worthy translation.

As for translation, yea, I would preach out of just about any of em.
Oh I know you didn't... I was just bouncing off your post to make a point. Save some of the newer freaky versions... NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, NLT, Revised... etc... let me at them with any of those translations. ;)

Ashley274
May 10th 2008, 01:26 AM
:bounce: I really dislike the Amplified Bible version...I like the KJV and NKJV the best...
I think minus being able to read Greek the KJV is close to the most accurate..This is JMHO
I wish I could read Greek and get my hands on the original manuscripts...I do a lot of searches in here and way back..I didn't notate the date..I saw many ...some even mad posts on here on the Bible and people who ONLY believe in the KJV ...I stay out of fights...Don't wanna pulll on a dogs ears ;) but it makes for great reading...

The Parson
May 10th 2008, 01:28 AM
Your post put a smile on your pastors face ProPet.

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 01:37 AM
Your post put a smile on your pastors face ProPet.
Ha! Good! You know Tim. I spoke about old Jack Hyle in another thread with someone the other day. Got to missing that old man. He sure didn't seem the nicest fellow on the planet when you heard some of his messages. But he treated me like a brother in Christ. I remember back in like 97... 98. I ran a very large message board and had a run of KJV only folk on my site. Man... they thought I was the devil himself because I used the NASB. Seriously... they too had a Jack Hyle Forum and they had a list of all the "Bad Boys". I led all of those guys and you can name off many of the folks still preaching that even make me cringe today. I would read in that forum and just made me want to cry because it was just plain hateful. I spent a bunch of money and I copied ream after ream of stuff off that site and I sent it next day FED EX to Jack. That very Sunday morning he called. Told me that it would be solved that day.

That Monday... that site and most every other Jack Hyle follower on the Internet closed down their message boards and web sites because Jack preached on the evils of the Internet. :lol: THing is... Jack didn't preach on porn... on folks using bad translations... none of that. He preached on how hateful even many of his own people had become because they could hide behind some made up name while being on the Internet. It was one of the most spot on messages I have ever heard and I don't even think Jack himself ever knew how correct he was on a lot of what he said.

When I met him face to face... he gave me the pulpit and allowed me to preach. As I have done in your church... I gladly and proudly, without a problem, used the King James Version and not a thing wrong with it. Like I said... when it ever becomes ONLY about a translation then God help us all. We've totally missed what it is all about.

The Parson
May 10th 2008, 01:42 AM
Ha! Good! You know Tim. I spoke about old Jack Hyle in another thread with someone the other day. Got to missing that old man. He sure didn't seem the nicest fellow on the planet when you heard some of his messages. But he treated me like a brother in Christ. I remember back in like 97... 98. I ran a very large message board and had a run of KJV only folk on my site. Man... they thought I was the devil himself because I used the NASB. Seriously... they too had a Jack Hyle Forum and they had a list of all the "Bad Boys". I led all of those guys and you can name off many of the folks still preaching that even make me cringe today. I would read in that forum and just made me want to cry because it was just plain hateful. I spent a bunch of money and I copied ream after ream of stuff off that site and I sent it next day FED EX to Jack. That very Sunday morning he called. Told me that it would be solved that day.

That Monday... that site and most every other Jack Hyle follower on the Internet closed down their message boards and web sites because Jack preached on the evils of the Internet. :lol: THing is... Jack didn't preach on porn... on folks using bad translations... none of that. He preached on how hateful even many of his own people had become because they could hide behind some made up name while being on the Internet. It was one of the most spot on messages I have ever heard and I don't even think Jack himself ever knew how correct he was on a lot of what he said.

When I met him face to face... he gave me the pulpit and allowed me to preach. As I have done in your church... I gladly and proudly, without a problem, used the King James Version and not a thing wrong with it. Like I said... when it ever becomes ONLY about a translation then God help us all. We've totally missed what it is all about.Of that we can all rest. Religous priorities sometimes get in the way of Holy Priorities. Amen?

JordanW
May 10th 2008, 01:45 AM
I read a post earlier in the thread about the NASB. Is this the first edition?
http://www.berean.com/product.asp?sku=1885217722

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 01:45 AM
Of that we can all rest. Religous priorities sometimes get in the way of Holy Priorities. Amen?
You bet and it's like I said... Someone is NIV only... as much as that might sort of grate the snot out of me... I'd grab the one that I do have (color coded and all) and color my behind there preaching. One shot and you know what I am preaching... 2 Peter 1: 1-11... live it. The message I preach will be the same. Do these things and you'll never stumble. :D I can preach the same message no matter the text I read it from. If I have another... give me some prayer time and I'll make number two work as well... third... repeat... etc.

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 01:49 AM
I read a post earlier in the thread about the NASB. Is this the first edition?
http://www.berean.com/product.asp?sku=1885217722
No... if you look under NASB you will see in blurred and smaller letters... updated version.

Go to Family Christian Bookstore's website. You should be able to find it there and if you have one close to home... just drop in and they'll either have it or can order you one. If you don't have one close by... shoot me a PM and I'll help you find one either on line or I'll go pick on up for you at my store and send it to you.

And seriously though... don't just stop there. The King James is a great Bible. That definitely should be in your war chest if you don't have one. Right now... you can generally get them fairly cheap in bonded leather. The new fake leather stuff they have now too... don't be afraid of it. That stuff is as good as leather now and I'm sold on them. They look very nice as well. The gift Bibles... those won't last you long at all so stay away from those. Even at five... ten bucks a pop... if you really do actually read them a lot... they will tear up on you in a couple of months max.

karenoka27
May 10th 2008, 02:03 AM
I can only imagine. I was a very staunch KJV only guy early on. Then I met someone that used the NASB that had more power in their life than anyone I had ever met. He really loved people. He looked like the Jesus of the bible to me. When I saw that, I figured the NASB must be nourishing him pretty good. More than anything else, his testimony led me to leave my KJV only belief system behind. Sure glad I did.

Well that explains it...you now look like Jesus in your profile picture on the shore with a fish! I wonder what I would like if I pull out my NASB and start reading it!:lol::hug:

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 02:06 AM
Well that explains it...you now look like Jesus in your profile picture on the shore with a fish! I wonder what I would like if I pull out my NASB and start reading it!:lol::hug:
OH BLAH! I just know that Jesus had a WHOLE LOT MORE HAIR! :lol:

Brother Mark
May 10th 2008, 02:19 AM
OH BLAH! I just know that Jesus had a WHOLE LOT MORE HAIR! :lol:

Be careful in the woods. I hear tell there's a lot of she bears out there. :cool:

Matt14
May 10th 2008, 02:20 AM
Matt, it wasn't known as Easter at that time perse! In that you are correct. Not sure I would call that an error though because the celebration of fertility was already a calendar event. A specific day. Whereas the Passover had several days to it if you get my meaning. To me it makes a more precise meaning, pointing more to a precise date.

Not even that the translators of the King James were trying to give glory to another besides God, but a place to "point to" on the calender. It would be the same as a farmer telling you that he planted in the Spring Equinox or for a fisherman to tell you that he made his biggest catch on the first full moon of the year. It just so happens that this was the time on the calender that our Savior Arose!

Also, Luke was a physician, a man of much knowledge & learning. He knew it was right thing for him to point to a specific time that was known to everybody of the day! The starting of Passover was a few days before the time of Easter, therefore it wouldn't be as precise to point to that time on the calender! There is more than one day in the time of the Passover! I'm not sure why he didn't say something like "the third day of passover"! Except that Luke, being a gentile, would relate more to the day of Estros as I believe it was called than he would the passover.

Just a thought.

I understand all that, but the fact is that "Easter" was not an observance at the time, and the word in Greek is πάσχα (pascha), which means "passover." There is really no way to explain it away, other than to say the translators made a mistake.

Really, I don't want to dwell on it. It's just a translation error, and it happens to the best of translations. :)

-

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 02:22 AM
Be careful in the woods. I hear tell there's a lot of she bears out there. :cool:
They wouldn't dare. I have tons of hair and that hairball would dang near kill em! :P You on the other hand... like a chicken wing! :lol:

Brother Mark
May 10th 2008, 02:51 AM
They wouldn't dare. I have tons of hair and that hairball would dang near kill em! :P You on the other hand... like a chicken wing! :lol:

Ha. That's what the evil kids said. And you know how that turned out. :saint:

Besides, we all know that God made only a few perfect heads. The rest he covered with hair. :cool:

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 02:56 AM
Ha. That's what the evil kids said. And you know how that turned out. :saint:

Besides, we all know that God made only a few perfect heads. The rest he covered with hair. :cool:
And the serpent told Eve... Go ahead EAT.... It's all cool! :lol:

Clifton
May 10th 2008, 03:38 AM
Numbers 22:28-30 (AV 1769):

ď28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.
30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay. {uponÖ: Heb. who hast ridden upon me} {ever sinceÖ: or, ever since thou wast, etc}Ē

Yea, I guess the LORD can speak through some of these English Bible Versions out there. :D

Blessings.

Clifton
May 10th 2008, 03:40 AM
Ha. That's what the evil kids said. And you know how that turned out. :saint:

Besides, we all know that God made only a few perfect heads. The rest he covered with hair. :cool:


:amen::thumbsup:

Blessings.

brakelite
May 10th 2008, 05:44 AM
Be careful in the woods. I hear tell there's a lot of she bears out there. :cool:

That's a fish???? in that little pic?
I thought you were reading a newspaper!!!:rofl:

JordanW
May 10th 2008, 06:26 AM
Arguing with KJV Onlyist's is pointless, I have come to realize...:lol:

Gentile
May 10th 2008, 11:31 AM
I will admit I was KJV only snob for awhile, now I am a NKJV snob. I love both.

BTW what IS the real bible? is it the 1611 kjv?

ProjectPeter
May 10th 2008, 11:49 AM
Arguing with KJV Onlyist's is pointless, I have come to realize...:lol:The major point to ponder Jordan... why argue with them at all? If they want to read the King James... and they're in their own forum... don't bother them. ;)

seamus414
May 10th 2008, 03:36 PM
I use the RSV as that is the version accepted by most scholars as the best translation currently available. It is also the version that has been received as the "official" version of the most denominations out there in America. Who am I to argue with that many people "in the know" as it were?

Reynolds357
May 10th 2008, 05:28 PM
I will admit I was KJV only snob for awhile, now I am a NKJV snob. I love both.

BTW what IS the real bible? is it the 1611 kjv?

Most "KJV only say the 1611 is. However, they read the 1850 and quote out of the 1850 and do not even own a 1611. You pose a good question.

Reynolds357
May 10th 2008, 05:32 PM
The major point to ponder Jordan... why argue with them at all? If they want to read the King James... and they're in their own forum... don't bother them. ;)

Exactly, do not bother them if they do not bother you. The problems I have had with them have been in ministry. Churches have been split over the KJV only Bible. It is aggravating when you are told, "by the way, bring a King James Bible to preach out of when you come."

One point that has not been brought into the discussion is that the new versions of the Bible clarify some areas that were left gray in the King James Bible. In doing this, they mess up some good sermons that old pastors enjoy preaching. The 4th man in the furnace is the perfect example of a classic sermon that the modern translations totally mess up for the preachers who have mistakenly preached it for so many years.

JordanW
May 10th 2008, 05:57 PM
I don't understand how they could conform to one specific translation though.:confused

Dave McIntyre
May 10th 2008, 06:00 PM
OK I hesitate to wade in here, more a declaration.

For personal study I use the KJV, NASB, and the NIV. I also read the Message as a commentary because I find it very fresh and it has forced me to look stuff up in the Greek myself to confirm things.

I minister in my second language, Portuguese. For me the clearest translation in Portuguese is the NVI (New International Version), that is the Portuguese I labored intensely to learn how to speak. Anyway, IMO the alternate readings that are included in the margins of the english NIV are usually the correct ones. In the Portuguese version they are all switched and it reads much better. I find I am better at commnicating in Portuguese and my listeners are better able to comprehend the message when I preach from the NVI. I have never used the NIV from the pulpit in the US. Most often I will ask what version a church uses in advance and preach from that when I am invited to speak.

I have close friends (pastors) who are staunch KJV'ers because they feel it is the best translation for english speaking people. I have other close pastor friends who are just as staunch with the NASB for the exact same reason. When people ask me if the KJV has been translated into Portuguese yet I just kind of glaze over.

I really take exception to American missionaries who come here trying to ignite the same kind of divisive arguement here with the Portuguese translations. The really funny part about that is that the Portuguese version they settled on predates the KJV and reflects differing translation choices in many places. They don't all agree on which version is THE version in Portuguese either.

OK, I'm done.

Mac

ProjectPeter
May 11th 2008, 01:17 AM
Exactly, do not bother them if they do not bother you. The problems I have had with them have been in ministry. Churches have been split over the KJV only Bible. It is aggravating when you are told, "by the way, bring a King James Bible to preach out of when you come."

One point that has not been brought into the discussion is that the new versions of the Bible clarify some areas that were left gray in the King James Bible. In doing this, they mess up some good sermons that old pastors enjoy preaching. The 4th man in the furnace is the perfect example of a classic sermon that the modern translations totally mess up for the preachers who have mistakenly preached it for so many years.
Why is that aggrevating? Like I said... tell me I can only use the NIV and color me there preaching if I have the chance. How can I believe the translation fine for the salvation of a soul and then be aggravated because someone wants me to only use that particular version? Seriously ponder that because ultimately... it is about heart/attitude.

Buck shot
May 11th 2008, 03:34 AM
I believe that I can hear the Southern Baptist's screaming! Most that I know would rather die than read from the NIV.;)

:lol: Brother, you are right again. I think you must be a closet Baptist! :P

I have seen Baptist preachers try many versions from the pulpit, but never the NIV...

TrustGzus
May 11th 2008, 03:36 AM
Jordan asked what we all think of this (KJV Onlyism).

KJV Onlyism is zeal without knowledge in my opinion.

I think the KJV is a fine translation. I love my KJV Open Bible. The KJV's most recent edition that most people own is the 1769 Blaney edition. However, we are in the 21st century. Let's be honest - we don't speak that way and many verses can be misunderstood by people.

For example, take a look at 2 Thessalonians 2:7 . . .
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (2 Th 2:7). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


This gives almost the opposite idea of what the verse is really saying. Look at the NKJV . . .
7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.
The New King James Version. 1982 (2 Th 2:7). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


The KJV uses let while the NKJV uses restrain. We don't use let that way anymore.

There is a big difference between saying I will let you versus I will restrain you.

The word let was accurate at the time the KJV was translated. It is inaccurate today.

The KJV Only advocate will say we can use a dictionary. That is true. But why should anyone have to have a dictionary constantly available to read their Bible? Besides, in the case of 2 Thessalonians 2:7, why would anyone think they need a dictionary? That's where it gets problematic. Sometimes a person may think they understand the KJV when in fact they have not.

Check out this verse: 2 Corinthians 6:12 . . .
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (2 Co 6:12). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


What in the world does that mean? The NKJV helps a little . . .
12 You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted by your own affections.
The New King James Version. 1982 (2 Co 6:12). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


But as much as many in this thread don't like the NIV, boy . . . the NIV sure makes it clear . . .
12 We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us.
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) (2 Co 6:12). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.


Which brings up an important question:

Is a formal translation a better translation than a functional translation if a person cannot understand a formal translation?

Sometimes a formal translation such as the KJV, NKJV, NASB and others is understandable. Sometimes they aren't all that clear to the average reader. Oh, they're clear to us who live in the Bible and study like a maniac. However, while many of us study a lot, many others do not study like we do.

If a person picks up a formal translation and can't understand it without doing all the studying, can we really call it a "good" translation?

I've been studying translational issues for 20 years. The answers aren't usually simple enough to post in a single sentence, paragraph, or even an entire post.

I use many different translations and/or paraphrases. The most important thing that I can say is that if people read paragraphs or chapters rather than single verses, then they will have a sound theology whether they use the NIV or TNIV all the way through the more formal NASB or KJV. Reading entire contexts is the biggest key to having a sound theology. The translation is not the key - unless we talk about deliberate mistranslations such as the New World Translation.

JordanW
May 11th 2008, 03:37 AM
I personally just don't like the way that the NIV is phrased.

TrustGzus
May 11th 2008, 03:43 AM
Greetings Reynolds, and welcome to Bibleforums as I see that you just joined this month. It's great to have you hear with us.

You've made some good observations in some of your posting in this thread. An example is your questioning why KJV only advocates don't accept the NKJV. I agree with that idea. I think the NKJV is great. I've read the KJV through cover to cover several times and same with the NKJV. I like them both.

Let me ask you about this claim you made . . .
I think that there are good modern translations. I also think that there are several modern translations that are nothing but heresy. TNIV is one of them. This translation is heretical and it really saddened me that Zondervan would publish it. How do you define heresy? After you've defined it, could you give some examples of heresy in the TNIV?

Thanks, Reynolds.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Reynolds357
May 11th 2008, 04:31 AM
Greetings Reynolds, and welcome to Bibleforums as I see that you just joined this month. It's great to have you hear with us.

You've made some good observations in some of your posting in this thread. An example is your questioning why KJV only advocates don't accept the NKJV. I agree with that idea. I think the NKJV is great. I've read the KJV through cover to cover several times and same with the NKJV. I like them both.

Let me ask you about this claim you made . . . How do you define heresy? After you've defined it, could you give some examples of heresy in the TNIV?

Thanks, Reynolds.


Grace & peace to you,

Joe

I define heresy as a statement or belief that opposed traditional church doctrine.

TNIV makes God gender neutral. HE is not gender neutral. Stating that He is, is heresy.

ProjectPeter
May 11th 2008, 01:47 PM
:lol: Brother, you are right again. I think you must be a closet Baptist! :P

I have seen Baptist preachers try many versions from the pulpit, but never the NIV...Maybe they've all repented and turned from that sin. :lol:

2 Peter 2:20
May 12th 2008, 01:11 AM
:lol: Brother, you are right again. I think you must be a closet Baptist! :P

I have seen Baptist preachers try many versions from the pulpit, but never the NIV...

There I go again...being right. I need to stop that don't I?
Freewill...maybe!

Reynolds357
May 12th 2008, 01:58 AM
Why is that aggrevating? Like I said... tell me I can only use the NIV and color me there preaching if I have the chance. How can I believe the translation fine for the salvation of a soul and then be aggravated because someone wants me to only use that particular version? Seriously ponder that because ultimately... it is about heart/attitude.

It is aggrevating for several reasons. The main reason is that if you give the minister the pulpit, give it to him. Do not try to tell him what to preach or how to preach it. You should know a minister well enough before you turn your pulpit over to him that you trust him. If you agree with him enough to give him your pulpit, do not ruin that trust by doing something silly like telling him,"preach out of the King James Bible only."

Brother Mark
May 12th 2008, 02:01 AM
It is aggrevating for several reasons. The main reason is that if you give the minister the pulpit, give it to him. Do not try to tell him what to preach or how to preach it. You should know a minister well enough before you turn your pulpit over to him that you trust him. If you agree with him enough to give him your pulpit, do not ruin that trust by doing something silly like telling him,"preach out of the King James Bible only."

Paul said he became all things in order to win some to Christ. The point? You might have people in that congregation that won't receive anything you say unless it is preached from the KJV.

TrustGzus
May 12th 2008, 03:57 AM
Greetings Reynolds,

I define heresy as a statement or belief that opposed traditional church doctrine.

TNIV makes God gender neutral. HE is not gender neutral. Stating that He is, is heresy.How did you come to the conclusion that the TNIV makes God gender neutral? Can you tell me some verses in which the TNIV makes God gender neutral?

Grace & peace,

Joe

Buck shot
May 12th 2008, 04:00 AM
Maybe they've all repented and turned from that sin. :lol:

If I could be sure of it I would have to "Monkey Dance"
:monkeyd:

Buck shot
May 12th 2008, 04:10 AM
Paul said he became all things in order to win some to Christ. The point? You might have people in that congregation that won't receive anything you say unless it is preached from the KJV.

Yep! You could also lose trust in the congregation by a preacher whom you trusted using another translation without realising the congregations views. I would hope that most of us would have Ken's view and use whatever version the church was using. It is more important that the message come from God than what version we chose.

I have found that many folks get confused when that preacher or evangelists uses a different bible than the congregation. It's harder for them to follow along. It als seems more difficult for them to gain trust.

I know I would not get my feelings hurt at all if asked to preach in a church that only used the "XYZ" version and asked me to preach from it.

Even if it was an NIV, God would still have a word for the congregation.

My heart's Desire
May 12th 2008, 04:45 AM
Wading in tenderly, I'll just state that when I first happened upon the fact that there was such a thing as KJO I went to searching. By the time, I had searched all my bibles, read all the pros and cons, personal opinions, the research etc, etc I had had enough. My faith was so weakened I didn't want to trust ANY translation any more unless I audiably heard God talking to me. I was afraid None of them could be trusted and that's a scary place to be in. My faith did finally get strengthened though because in reality, none of us were there listening to Paul or Jesus, and none of us lived in those times and none of us watched and knew the language as it was written down, we didn't see where all those pages or scrolls were perserved nor have we seen all the hands that touch the letters as they were recieved and passed from Church to church or bodies of believers, so in the end, it still revolves around and comes down to faith. Nor have any of us, actually watched or talked to those who have translated it all through the years. I decided that God does watch over His word and find most real translations from the languages are trustworthy though I'm not fond of paraphases.

My heart's Desire
May 12th 2008, 05:01 AM
NASB is my favorite translation as well. Grew up physically on a KJV. Grew up spiritually on a first edition NASB.
I adore the NASB, but like the REvised 95. Regardless I picked up a really nice first edition, NASB at the flea market for 2 bucks! I keep it in my truck for work breaks.

JordanW
May 12th 2008, 05:12 AM
Does anyone know what version of the KJV is used in the KJV Ryrie Study Bible?

JordanW
May 12th 2008, 06:29 AM
Does anyone have any tips on how I could understand the KJV better?

Matt14
May 12th 2008, 11:49 AM
Does anyone have any tips on how I could understand the KJV better?
http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/kjv-dictionary-index.html

or, get a NKJV. :D

-

Reynolds357
May 12th 2008, 01:24 PM
Does anyone know what version of the KJV is used in the KJV Ryrie Study Bible?

The 1850 is used anywhere you see "authorized version." If I remember correctly, ryrie is "Authorized."

Reynolds357
May 12th 2008, 01:29 PM
I have another honest, not loaded question for KJV only advocates. Which "authorized version" do you consider correct, the American published versions or the Cambridge published version? The American versions capitalize pronouns and non proper names that the translator believes references "deity." The Cambridge does not. There are several places in scripture that it can not be 100% certain from the manuscripts if the reference is referring to the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of man. The American publications of the Authorized Version make the determination that the reference is to Holy Spirit and capitalize the word Spirit and the references to it. Cambridge does not. Cambridge is older and in keeping with the 1611 which did not make these determinations but only capitalized proper names. Do you not see this addition to the American "Authorized versions" as a problem? I personally think that the authorized version made the wrong determination in at least two places, possibly more.

The Parson
May 12th 2008, 02:17 PM
Does anyone have any tips on how I could understand the KJV better?One tip helps more than any other Jordan. Prayer!

Also, the English used in the King James is a richer language than the condensed English we use today. Therefore, understanding the wording will allow you to have a richer understanding of what you are reading without having to dig constantly into the original languages.

And as far as using the KJV behind the pulpit of a King James believing Church, let me as a few of you a question. If you were asked to speak at a church where the pastor and congregation believed with all their heart that God had preserved His Word in that translation, would you out of stubborness use another version anyway that you knew wouldn't be received and would likely cause strife? Can any of you think of a verse or two that speaks against that very act?

Reynolds357
May 12th 2008, 02:50 PM
Greetings Reynolds,
How did you come to the conclusion that the TNIV makes God gender neutral? Can you tell me some verses in which the TNIV makes God gender neutral?

Grace & peace,

Joe

I am going to have to find one of the original revisions of TNIV. I was not clear in my orginal post that I was speaking of the first published revision of TNIV. The current revision has reverted back to masculine reference for deity. I was in seminary when the first revision was about to come out and we looked at the advanced release copies then. This, the original revision was only published for a very short time and then was replaced with a second revision which I understand eliminated most, if not all of the non-gender references to God. I have never read the current revision, only excerpts from it. The same would also be true for the original revision. If I can get my hands on a first revision TNIV, I will gladly find and post some of the problem scriptures. I do not know anyone who has one, and it seems that Zondervan caught so much heat over the original revision they have done a pretty good job of burying it.

The problems that are blaringly obvious in the current revision are the passages where singular male is turned into plural non gender.
John 14:23, I cor. 14:28, and Rev. 22:19 are a few examples of major problems that remain with the latest revision.
The Greek is a very specific language.

JordanW
May 12th 2008, 05:03 PM
The 1850 is used anywhere you see "authorized version." If I remember correctly, ryrie is "Authorized."So then his version is the 1850 version?

Reynolds357
May 12th 2008, 05:26 PM
So then his version is the 1850 version?

I have not looked at one in 10 years or more, but I am 99% sure that it is. Ryrie did not edit the text, he merely added reference materials to the work. In some editions it was center column reference and footnotes. In other additions it was complete commentary at the bottom of the page.

JordanW
May 12th 2008, 05:29 PM
Oh I know he didn't edit the text, I don't believe you're allowed to do that, LOL. Thanks for the response.:D

Reynolds357
May 12th 2008, 05:36 PM
Oh I know he didn't edit the text, I don't believe you're allowed to do that, LOL. Thanks for the response.:D

There are "King James Bibles" that have had the text edited in minor ways by the editor of the study Bible. I have seen three different ones over the years. I only know the name of one of them right off, because it is one that I own.

JordanW
May 12th 2008, 05:46 PM
What kind of changes were made?

Buck shot
May 12th 2008, 05:58 PM
I have another honest, not loaded question for KJV only advocates. Which "authorized version" do you consider correct, the American published versions or the Cambridge published version? The American versions capitalize pronouns and non proper names that the translator believes references "deity." The Cambridge does not. There are several places in scripture that it can not be 100% certain from the manuscripts if the reference is referring to the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of man. The American publications of the Authorized Version make the determination that the reference is to Holy Spirit and capitalize the word Spirit and the references to it. Cambridge does not. Cambridge is older and in keeping with the 1611 which did not make these determinations but only capitalized proper names. Do you not see this addition to the American "Authorized versions" as a problem? I personally think that the authorized version made the wrong determination in at least two places, possibly more.

I really think that desiding if a translation is accurate or not because of caps is really stretching in todays world. With so many that just leave entire verses out. I would rather use a Bible that had no caps, commas, or periods than to use one that has words left out. Just my opinion.

I do prefer to have the "He" capped though...:rolleyes:

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
When reading the Word, someone could not hear the caps anyway :lol:

The Parson
May 12th 2008, 06:00 PM
The revisions he was talking about I believe is where they took the King James and revised it with the Alexandrian texts calling it the authorized version. This, in effect made that volume no different from the ones sold today. To make a differintiation between the two, the original is still called the 1611 and the altered one which includes the Alexandrian is called the authorized. Not sure who authorized it though.

Below is an excert from an article I wrote a few years ago that touches on the subject.

To nail this down for you, the King James was translated solely from the preserved Hebrew texts, (the Hebrew Old Testament) and letters named "Textus Receptus" (Antiochian, Received, or Byzantine Text). The Textus Receptus are the diligently copied and preserved letters of the Apostles and Saints from the 1st century A.D. that have been handed down in the original Greek and Aramaic they were originally written in. No pagan middle men here! These were also referenced to the oldest Waldense / Paulician / Anabaptist texts called the "Old Itala Bible (http://www.ekkcom.com/gail17.htm)". Then they were translated by the Kings scholars to bring us the King James 1611 version. The only changes then to take place with the KJV were spelling corrections (1762 and 1769) because English spelling had changed. ie; s's for f's, and the removal of the books in between that most certainly didn't belong there and were put there under political pressure & so forth to give us the King James Version which we have today.

2 Peter 2:20
May 12th 2008, 06:01 PM
I really think that desiding if a translation is accurate or not because of caps is really stretching in todays world. With so many that just leave entire verses out. I would rather use a Bible that had no caps, commas, or periods than to use one that has words left out. Just my opinion.

I do prefer to have the "He" capped though...:rolleyes:

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
When reading the Word, someone could not hear the caps anyway :lol:

I might be wrong but the oldest Greek manuscripts were written in all caps:hmm:

JordanW
May 12th 2008, 06:41 PM
Is there any website I could use to check and see how accurate my translation is by comparing verses?

TrustGzus
May 12th 2008, 07:06 PM
Hey 2 Pete,
I might be wrong but the oldest Greek manuscripts were written in all caps:hmm:That is correct. No spaces nor punctuation either.

Buck shot
May 12th 2008, 07:08 PM
BibleGateway.com is usually open on another tab my computer. You can quickly go between versions there. There have several versions but not all of them.:hmm:

I hope this helps!

TrustGzus
May 12th 2008, 07:09 PM
Hey Reynolds,

Thank you for replying. So since you said in your previous post that the TNIV does not make God gender neutral, but rather refers to Him as male, don't you agree that labeling it as heretical is unfair? Unless you have some other reason(s) for calling it heretical.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Vhayes
May 12th 2008, 07:12 PM
The best translation of the one you will read. If it sits on a shelf because it's too difficult to wade through, it might as well not even be there.

My mother was a Christian, attended church for years and years. She seldom if ever read her bible. I got her a Living Bible one year, no special occassion, I just saw it and thought she might enjoy it. Man! What a change. She wore that bible OUT. She carried it with her everywhere she went and was always making coments about how something FINALLY made sense to her. It was beautiful to see!

I personally use the NASB - I like the way it flows language-wise and I was told by a true scholar that it stays more true to the original languages than other translations.

Hope that helps a bit.
V

TrustGzus
May 12th 2008, 07:22 PM
The above post by Vhayes is a great example of how I think the Living Bible and others like The Message work best.

It can be hard for someone who isn't a regular Bible reader to pick up a KJV or NASB. When I got saved, I bought I KJV. Then a friend gave me the Living Bible. I devoured it. I went back to the KJV with much better understanding. I still quote the Living Bible occasionally. For any of you who listen to Chuck Swindoll, you might notice that he quotes it quite a bit. Same with The Message. I quote it sometimes.

Those Bible are good to get people reading and build their hunger. Then try to move them to something that isn't so free in how it expresses the text.

Reynolds357
May 12th 2008, 07:52 PM
What kind of changes were made?
Nothing significant. Thee, Thou, and other archaic words were replaced with their modern equivalent.

IamBill
May 12th 2008, 07:56 PM
I am still wondering if there is any "very serious" proven mistakes in the KJV

Buck shot
May 12th 2008, 07:58 PM
I am still wondering if there is any "very serious" proven mistakes in the KJV

Can I answer? :rolleyes:

NOPE

Reynolds357
May 12th 2008, 07:59 PM
Hey Reynolds,

Thank you for replying. So since you said in your previous post that the TNIV does not make God gender neutral, but rather refers to Him as male, don't you agree that labeling it as heretical is unfair? Unless you have some other reason(s) for calling it heretical.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

The first revision is definitely heretical. I will have to concede that Zondervan and the IBS have made an effort to clean up the mistakes in the first revision. However, Zondervan only did it because of threts of all out boycot of all their printed materials. The text still changes verses to the point that the altered meaning is no longer accurate. I would still consider it heretical based on the fact that it completely attemps to take specific Greek text that was written in singular masculine and alter its meaning by making it plural gender neutral. Greek text was specific about both genders and singular vs. plural tenses. TNIV goes against manuscript to make a politically correct bible. That, I still consider heresy.

Reynolds357
May 12th 2008, 08:03 PM
I really think that desiding if a translation is accurate or not because of caps is really stretching in todays world. With so many that just leave entire verses out. I would rather use a Bible that had no caps, commas, or periods than to use one that has words left out. Just my opinion.



I do not think it is trivial. I think it is very important. When the manuscript does not provide concrete evidence to support whether or not the word is or is not referring to deity, the translator can not make that determination. I personally use Cambridge KJV because it does not make that determination. When the translator takes the liberty to make guesses as to what a word or passage means, then he is translating his opinion into scripture.

IamBill
May 12th 2008, 08:05 PM
Can I answer? :rolleyes:

NOPE

Thank you :)

I can google as well as anyone else- all debatable depending on source

can even find that "the Bible is a mistake" :rolleyes:

Buck shot
May 12th 2008, 08:08 PM
Thank you :)

I can google as well as anyone else- all debatable depending on source

can even find that "the Bible is a mistake" :rolleyes:

:rofl: I hear ya Brother!

Reynolds357
May 12th 2008, 08:08 PM
The revisions he was talking about I believe is where they took the King James and revised it with the Alexandrian texts calling it the authorized version. This, in effect made that volume no different from the ones sold today. To make a differintiation between the two, the original is still called the 1611 and the altered one which includes the Alexandrian is called the authorized. Not sure who authorized it though.

Below is an excert from an article I wrote a few years ago that touches on the subject.

I am failing to understand one thing, about the article you posted. Neither the 1762 nor the 1769 KJV is the version being published today by the vast majority of Bible publishers. I would guess, from my personal observations, that 99% of the KJV bibles sold today are 1850 KJV. In fact, every KJV only advocate I know, except one, has 1850 and calls it 1611. The 1850, the altered version, is what is known today as KJV. The 1611, 1762, and 1769 are almost utterly obscure.

Buck shot
May 12th 2008, 08:11 PM
I do not think it is trivial. I think it is very important. When the manuscript does not provide concrete evidence to support whether or not the word is or is not referring to deity, the translator can not make that determination. I personally use Cambridge KJV because it does not make that determination. When the translator takes the liberty to make guesses as to what a word or passage means, then he is translating his opinion into scripture.

I like to believe that the translator was doing his best. Maybe i am just being optimistic but if they are sticking to the KJV then they are not trying to add or take away anything by capitalization. :kiss:

Reynolds357
May 12th 2008, 08:13 PM
I am still wondering if there is any "very serious" proven mistakes in the KJV

There are no proven mistakes. In my opinion, there are no mistakes whatsoever in the Cambridge published KJV Bibles. It is up to scholarly debate as to whether some of the capitalizations, thus defining references to deity, that appear in the american KJV bibles are mistakes.

2 Peter 2:20
May 12th 2008, 08:13 PM
I am failing to understand one thing, about the article you posted. Neither the 1762 nor the 1769 KJV is the version being published today by the vast majority of Bible publishers. I would guess, from my personal observations, that 99% of the KJV bibles sold today are 1850 KJV. In fact, every KJV only advocate I know, except one, has 1850 and calls it 1611. The 1850, the altered version, is what is known today as KJV. The 1611, 1762, and 1769 are almost utterly obscure.

In my experience I have found the same. Most call it 1611 but very, very, very few really have the 1611. I even carry the real deal 1611 with me so when I do come across one who is a little confused/wants to debate it then I can enlighten them to what the real 1611 looks like and reads like.

Buck shot
May 12th 2008, 08:15 PM
I am failing to understand one thing, about the article you posted. Neither the 1762 nor the 1769 KJV is the version being published today by the vast majority of Bible publishers. I would guess, from my personal observations, that 99% of the KJV bibles sold today are 1850 KJV. In fact, every KJV only advocate I know, except one, has 1850 and calls it 1611. The 1850, the altered version, is what is known today as KJV. The 1611, 1762, and 1769 are almost utterly obscure.

Now you know two, I have a 1611 that I keep around just to show folks what it was like then. I think it's beautiful. I will admit I have never preached from the 1611. :hmm: Maybe I will one Wednesday night when it would not confuse some that are on milk.

Reynolds357
May 12th 2008, 08:15 PM
I like to believe that the translator was doing his best. Maybe i am just being optimistic but if they are sticking to the KJV then they are not trying to add or take away anything by capitalization. :kiss:

I think that most of the translators of most of the translations were doing their best. Some had agendas, but most were doing their best. The point I am making is that by capitalization, the translator has possibly seriously altered the meaning of verses. It is up to scholarly debate as to whether the translators are correct or incorrect. However, they are making a determination the manuscript can not support. Thus, they have written their opinion into scripture.

Buck shot
May 12th 2008, 08:16 PM
In my experience I have found the same. Most call it 1611 but very, very, very few really have the 1611. I even carry the real deal 1611 with me so when I do come across one who is a little confused about the subject then I can enlighten them to what the real 1611 looks like and reads like.

I am picturing you at Walmarts with that 1611 :rofl:

2 Peter 2:20
May 12th 2008, 08:17 PM
I am picturing you at Walmarts with that 1611 :rofl:

Yeah, the 80 books thing really gets them stirred up!;)

After that they are ready to string me up to the Walmart rafters

Reynolds357
May 12th 2008, 08:20 PM
Now you know two, I have a 1611 that I keep around just to show folks what it was like then. I think it's beautiful. I will admit I have never preached from the 1611. :hmm: Maybe I will one Wednesday night when it would not confuse some that are on milk.

I have a 1611 Also. It is a work of art, but hard to read due to the type. The Cambridge published KJV is by far my favorite translation, but I do not limit myself to it. I do not feel that there are any mistakes in the Cambridge published KJV, but I do feel that in certain places the English language has changed so much that the meaning is unclear in certain areas to the vast majority of the people who would hear it read. If I can read the passage and it stand alone without commentary out of the KJV, I use it. If it requires me to do much more explaining than I would prefer, I use a modern.

Buck shot
May 12th 2008, 08:38 PM
I think that most of the translators of most of the translations were doing their best. Some had agendas, but most were doing their best. The point I am making is that by capitalization, the translator has possibly seriously altered the meaning of verses. It is up to scholarly debate as to whether the translators are correct or incorrect. However, they are making a determination the manuscript can not support. Thus, they have written their opinion into scripture.

I cannot argue with that point. I agree when man attempts to make things easier it can get blurry very quickly. The thing we have to remember is that there are very few today that can go back to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Folks must find a version they can trust and stick to it. If we go around poking holes in the Bible we will cause some to stumble. The KJV has been tried and tested for hundreds of years now.

I trust it with my life, literally. As many did before me.

TrustGzus
May 12th 2008, 08:53 PM
Hey Reynolds,

Do you consider the KJV heretical when it renders masculine terms as neutral? Or is the New Testament heretical when it renders an Old Testament passage as neutral when the Old Testament was masculine?

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

The Parson
May 13th 2008, 12:36 AM
I am failing to understand one thing, about the article you posted. Neither the 1762 nor the 1769 KJV is the version being published today by the vast majority of Bible publishers. I would guess, from my personal observations, that 99% of the KJV bibles sold today are 1850 KJV. In fact, every KJV only advocate I know, except one, has 1850 and calls it 1611. The 1850, the altered version, is what is known today as KJV. The 1611, 1762, and 1769 are almost utterly obscure.They are rare indeed. Nelson I believe published them for years and still do as far as I know. Sometimes there is no differientiation at all made by the publisher which can be confusing. But I think you might be a little high on your percentages though. And yes I do have my unaltered copy of the 1611 just to make sure if I am in question.

Clifton
May 13th 2008, 12:42 AM
The 1850 is used anywhere you see "authorized version." If I remember correctly, ryrie is "Authorized."

Actually, it is the 1769 used - the 1850 revision did not go over well with people. I do have the 1850 revision of KJV in the e-sword Bible Software program.

For Hebrew 4:8, 1769 revision says "Jesus" as opposed to "Joshua" in the 1850 revision and other Bibles. "Joshua" is the better rendering so people do not get the person mixed up with the Messiah.

Blessings.

The Parson
May 13th 2008, 12:45 AM
And to answer a question of sorts, the 1611 revised spelling is also published by Imperial and Nelson publishes it under the Regency label. FYI, the Gideons Bible is the Authorized version just incase anyone is curious... At least I think it is... I'll do some checking.

Reynolds357
May 13th 2008, 12:26 PM
Hey Reynolds,

Do you consider the KJV heretical when it renders masculine terms as neutral? Or is the New Testament heretical when it renders an Old Testament passage as neutral when the Old Testament was masculine?

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

No, I would not consider KJV heretical because it was not translated with a translation bias. I am honestly unaware of the passages to which you refer; they are not coming to mind. The reason I consider TNIV heretical is the fact that it was published with one of its goals as being to make the bible gender neutral that was more inclusive. I think that is what shocked so many people when the first copies of the bible came out. Zondervan actually advertised it when first published as being an "inclusive" translation. If one alters the scripture by mistake, it is just that, a mistake. (Not saying KJV did this.) If one intentionally alters the meaning of scripture, it is heresy. TNIV intentionally altered the text of scripture.

David Taylor
May 13th 2008, 12:34 PM
http://www.studylight.org/par/view.cgi?query=John+14%3A6&section=0&l1=en&t1=kjv&l2=en&t2=kja&Enter=Search

Here you can compare the 1611 KJV with the 1759 revision on any verse.

It also includes The Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop, Geneva, etc...

all Searchable and comparable side by side.

Reynolds357
May 13th 2008, 01:43 PM
http://www.studylight.org/par/view.cgi?query=John+14%3A6&section=0&l1=en&t1=kjv&l2=en&t2=kja&Enter=Search

Here you can compare the 1611 KJV with the 1759 revision on any verse.

It also includes The Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop, Geneva, etc...

all Searchable and comparable side by side.

That is a very useful site. I have never found one like it.

TrustGzus
May 13th 2008, 03:52 PM
Hey Reynolds,

Which is worse:


letting people know that you are making masculine references gender neutral?
not telling people you are making masculine references gender neutral?

The KJV makes over 1500 masculine references gender neutral in the Old Testament alone. I don't think something 1500+ times can be called a mistake. The translators never told anyone they were doing this that I'm aware of.

The question is how can you call the TNIV heretical for doing what it does with the translators making it quite clear what they did and call the KJV not guilty for doing the same thing over 1500 times without letting people know they did it?

I might have missed it, but I didn't read your response to if you think Paul is heretical when he takes masculine singular in the Old Testament and makes it a neutral plural in the New Testament. Is Paul heretical at that point?

Grace & peace to you, Reynolds.

Joe

Reynolds357
May 13th 2008, 06:15 PM
Hey Reynolds,

Which is worse:


letting people know that you are making masculine references gender neutral?
not telling people you are making masculine references gender neutral?
The KJV makes over 1500 masculine references gender neutral in the Old Testament alone. I don't think something 1500+ times can be called a mistake. The translators never told anyone they were doing this that I'm aware of.

The question is how can you call the TNIV heretical for doing what it does with the translators making it quite clear what they did and call the KJV not guilty for doing the same thing over 1500 times without letting people know they did it?

I might have missed it, but I didn't read your response to if you think Paul is heretical when he takes masculine singular in the Old Testament and makes it a neutral plural in the New Testament. Is Paul heretical at that point?

Grace & peace to you, Reynolds.

Joe

Paul is not heretical because he spoke and wrote at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirt can make the change in Scripture if He so desires.


The translators of TNIV plainly went against manuscript to produce a gender neutral, more inclusive Bible. They changed scripture to fulfill a personal or corporate motive. That is heretical. The translators of the KJV had no desire or bias to create gender neutrality. If any bias existed during that era, it would have been to be exclusive, not inclusive, of the female.

TrustGzus
May 13th 2008, 06:36 PM
Paul is not heretical because he spoke and wrote at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirt can make the change in Scripture if He so desires.


The translators of TNIV plainly went against manuscript to produce a gender neutral, more inclusive Bible. They changed scripture to fulfill a personal or corporate motive. That is heretical. The translators of the KJV had no desire or bias to create gender neutrality. If any bias existed during that era, it would have been to be exclusive, not inclusive, of the female.Greetings Reynolds,

All due respect . . .

You state the translators of the TNIV plainly went against the manuscripts to produce a gender neutral, more inclusive Bible. Then you state the KJV had no desire or bias to create a gender neutrality.

1500+ times where the KJV translates masculine terms as neutral doesn't create gender neutrality? If 1500+ doesn't, then how many times does? 1600? 1700?

Again, KJV translators did this without stating they were going to do so. The TNIV translators were upfront about it.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

TrustGzus
May 13th 2008, 06:45 PM
Hey Reynolds,

Let me bounce something else off of you. Many times the TNIV translates a singular masculine into a plural neutral, the attempt is to translate meaning and in a way I can't imagine that you would disagree with.

Let's take John 14:23, one of the examples you mentioned. Let's look at the NASB, well known as a very formal translation.
Jesus answered and said to him, ďIf anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Jn 14:23). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.


Now let's look at the TNIV . . .
Jesus replied, ďAnyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.
The Holy Bible : Today's New International Version. 2005 (Jn 14:23). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.


Does this verse only apply to males? In other words, if our female readers love Jesus and obey his teaching, then will the Father not love the females and not make his abode with the females because the text uses masculine terms?

Or does this apply to females too? If it applies to females also, then is the TNIV really being heretical at this point, and if so, how is being heretical?

Grace & peace,

Joe

Reynolds357
May 13th 2008, 08:57 PM
Hey Reynolds,

Let me bounce something else off of you. Many times the TNIV translates a singular masculine into a plural neutral, the attempt is to translate meaning and in a way I can't imagine that you would disagree with.

Let's take John 14:23, one of the examples you mentioned. Let's look at the NASB, well known as a very formal translation.Now let's look at the TNIV . . . Does this verse only apply to males? In other words, if our female readers love Jesus and obey his teaching, then will the Father not love the females and not make his abode with the females because the text uses masculine terms?

Or does this apply to females too? If it applies to females also, then is the TNIV really being heretical at this point, and if so, how is being heretical?

Grace & peace,

Joe

The rendering did not add clarity. The author was perfectly capable of saying the equivalent of "anyone" in Greek. The author, at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, chose to say any Man. Does the Holy Spirit need correcting? Do you think that possibly there was a reason that He said exactly what He said in the orig. text? The writers could have been gender neutral if they chose, but they did not choose. We have to thus conclude that they penned the scripture the way the Holy Spirit inspired them to pen the scripture.
The following pretty much sums up my stance on TNIV also.

Statement of Concern about the TNIV Bible

Recently, the International Bible Society (IBS) and Zondervan Publishing announced their joint decision to publish a new translation of the Bible, known as Today's New International Version (http://www.bible-researcher.com/tniv.html) (TNIV). The TNIV makes significant changes in the gender language that is in the NIV. The TNIV raises more concern in this regard than previous Bible versions because, riding on the reputation of the NIV, the TNIV may vie for a place as the church's commonly accepted Bible. We believe that any commonly accepted Bible of the church should be more faithful to the language of the original.
We acknowledge that Bible scholars sometimes disagree about translation methods and about which English words best translate the original languages. We also agree that it is appropriate to use gender-neutral expressions where the original language does not include any male or female meaning. However, we believe the TNIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards in several important respects:

The TNIV translation often changes masculine, third person, singular pronouns (he, his and him) to plural gender-neutral pronouns. For example, in Revelation 3:20, the words of Jesus have been changed from "I will come in and eat with him, and he with me" to "I will come in and eat with them, and they with me." Jesus could have used plural pronouns when He spoke these words, but He chose not to. (The original Greek pronouns are singular.) In hundreds of such changes, the TNIV obscures any possible significance the inspired singular may have, such as individual responsibility or an individual relationship with Christ.
The TNIV translation obscures many biblical references to "father," "son," "brother," and "man." For example, in Hebrews 12:7, the NIV says "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?" But the TNIV translates Hebrews 12:7, "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their parents?" The reference to God as Father is lost. In numerous other verses male-oriented meanings that are present in the original language are lost in the TNIV.
The TNIV translation inserts English words into the text whose meaning does not appear in the original languages. For example, in Luke 17:3, the translators changed "If your brother sins, rebuke him" to "If any brother or sister sins against you, rebuke the offender." The problem is, the word "sister" is not found in the original language, nor is "against you," nor is 'offender.'
Thus, in hundreds of verses, the TNIV changes language with masculine meaning in the original Greek to something more generic. It does this in many ways, such as changing

"father" (singular) to "parents";
"son" (singular) to "child" or "children";
"brother" (singular) to "someone" or "brother or sister," and "brothers" (plural) to "believers";
"man" (singular, when referring to the human race) to "mere mortals" or "those" or "people";
"men" (plural, when referring to male persons) to "people" or "believers" or "friends" or "humans";
"he/him/his" to "they/them/their" or "you/your" or "we/us/our"; and
switching hundreds of whole sentences from singular to plural.
We wonder how the TNIV translators can be sure that this masculine language in God's very words does not carry meaning that God wants us to see.
Gender problems are not the only serious problems with the TNIV. For example: How do the TNIV translators know that changing "Jews" to "Jewish leaders," for example in Acts 13:50 and 21:11, does not make a false claim, and obscure a possible corporate meaning? How do they know that changing "saints" to "those" in Acts 9:13 or to "believers" in Acts 9:32 or to "Godís people" in Romans 8:27 does not sacrifice precious connotations of holiness which the Greek word carries? To justify translating "saints" as "believers" because it refers to believers is like justifying translating "sweetheart" as "wife" because thatís who it refers to.
Because of these and other misgivings, we cannot endorse the TNIV as sufficiently trustworthy to commend to the church. We do not believe it is a translation suitable for use as a normal preaching and teaching text of the church or for a common memorizing, study, and reading Bible of the Christian community.



Daniel L. Akin. Dean School of Theology The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY
Gregg R. Allison. Professor Western Seminary, Portland, OR
Kerby Andersen. President Probe Ministries, Richardson, TX
Neil T. Anderson. Founder and President Emeritus Freedom in Christ Ministries
Hudson T. Armerding. Past Chairman National Association of Evangelicals, Quarryville, PA
Edward G. Atsinger, III. President & CEO Salem Communications Corporation, Camarillo, CA
Tim Bayly. Senior Pastor Church of the Good Shepherd, Bloomington, IN
Ted Baehr. Chairman Christian Film & Television Commission, Camarillo, CA
H.F. Bayer. Professor Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, MO
Alistair Begg. Senior Pastor Parkside Church, Chagrin Falls, OH
Joel Belz. Founder and Chairman World Magazine, Asheville, NC
Ron Blue. Ronald Blue & Company
James A. Borland. Professor Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA
Harald Bredesen. Pastor at Large St. Paul's Lutheran Church, Westport, CT
Tal Brooke. President and Chairman SCP, Inc., Berkeley, CA
Harold O.J. Brown. Professor Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC
Larry Burkett. Founder Crown Financial Ministries, Gainesville, GA
A.B. Caneday. Professor Northwestern College, Saint Paul, Minnesota
Bryan Chapell. President Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, MO
E. Ray Clendenen. Executive editor, Bibles and Reference Books B&H Publishers, Nashville, TN
C. John Collins. Professor Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, MO
Charles Colson. Founder Prison Fellowship Ministry, Merrifield, VA
William Cook. Professor The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY
Jack Cottrell. Professor Cincinnati Bible Seminary, Cincinnati, OH
Darryl DelHousaye. Senior Pastor Scottsdale Bible Church, Scottsdale, AZ
Dennis H. Dirks. Dean Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA
Nancy Leigh DeMoss. Teacher and Author Life Action Ministries, Niles, MI
James Dobson. President Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, CO
Daniel Doriani. Dean of Faculty Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, MO
Ligon Duncan. Senior Minister First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, MS
Michael J. Easley. Senior Pastor-Teacher Immanuel Bible Church, Springfield, VA
Tom Elliff. Senior Pastor First Southern Baptist Church, Del City, OK
Stuart W. Epperson. Chairman Salem Communications Corp., Winston-Salem, NC
Jerry Falwell. Chancellor, Liberty University Pastor, Thomas Road Baptist Church, Lynchburg, VA
Steve Farrar. President Men's Leadership Ministries, Frisco, TX
Ronnie W. Floyd. Senior Pastor First Baptist Church, Springdale, AR The Church at Pinnacle Hills, Rogers, AR
John M. Frame. Professor Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, FL
Jack Graham. Senior Pastor Prestonwood Baptist Church, Prestonwood, TX
Wayne Grudem. Professor Phoenix Seminary, Scottsdale, AZ
Joshua Harris. Executive Pastor Covenant Life Church, Gaithersburg, MD
Jack Hayford. Founding Pastor The Church on the Way, Van Nuys, CA Chancellor, The King's College and Seminary
C.E. Hill. Professor Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, FL
Roland S. Hinz. President Hi-Favor Broadcasting (Spanish Language), Los Angeles, CA
Howard G. Hendricks. Professor Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX
Ken Hemphill. President Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, TX
H. Wayne House. Professor Faith Seminary, Tacoma, WA
R. Kent Hughes. Senior Pastor College Church, Wheaton, IL
Susan Hunt. Author Atlanta, GA
W. Bingham Hunter. Pastor/Bible Teacher/Author Chicago, IL
David Jeremiah. Pastor Shadow Mountain Community Church
Peter Jones. Professor Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido, CA
Mary Kassian. Author & Teacher Alabaster Flask Ministries, Edmonton, Canada
Charles S. Kelley, Jr.. President New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, New Orleans, LA
Rhonda H. Kelley. Professor New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, New Orleans, LA
D. James Kennedy. Senior Pastor Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Tim Kimmel. Author / Family Advocate Phoenix, AZ
Chuck Klein. National Director Student Venture, Orlando, FL
George W. Knight, III. Professor Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Taylors, SC
Bob Lepine. Director of Broadcasting FamilyLife, Little Rock, AR
Robert Lewis. Teaching Pastor Fellowship Bible Church, Little Rock, AR
H.B. London. VP of Ministry Outreach/Pastoral Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, CO
Crawford W. Loritts, Jr.. Assoc. USA Director Campus Crusade for Christ, Atlanta, GA
Erwin W. Lutzer. Senior Pastor Moody Church, Chicago, IL
John MacArthur. Pastor-Teacher Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA
James MacDonald. Pastor Harvest Bible Chapel, Rolling Meadows, IL
C.J. Mahaney. Senior Pastor Covenant Life Church, Gaithersburg, MD
Bill McCartney. President Promise Keepers, Denver, CO
Josh D. McDowell. Josh McDowell Ministry, Dallas, TX
James Merritt. President Southern Baptist Convention, Snellville, GA
R. Albert Mohler, Jr.. President The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY
Joel Nederhood. Pastor Director of Ministries, Emeritus The Back to God Hour
Niel Nielson. President Elect Covenant College, Lookout Mountain, TN
Marvin Olasky. Editor-in-Chief World Magazine, Asheville, NC
Stephen F. Olford. Founder and Chairman The Stephen Olford Center for Biblical Preaching, Memphis, TN
Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr.. Senior Pastor First Presbyterian Church, August, GA
J. I. Packer. Professor Regent College, Vancouver, B.C.
Janet Parshall. Nationally Syndicated Talk Show Host Janet Parshall's America, Arlington, VA
Dorothy Kelley Patterson. Professor Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC
Paige Patterson. President Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC
John Piper. Senior Pastor Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN
Randy Pope. Pastor Perimeter Church, Duluth, GA
Vern Poythress. Professor Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA
William Pugh. National Director Athletes in Action, Xenia, OH
Dick Purnell. Director Single Life Resources, Cary, NC
Dennis Rainey. Exec. Director FamilyLife, Little Rock, AR
W. Duncan Rankin. Professor Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, MS
Robert E. Reccord. President North American Mission Board, SBC, Apharetta, GA
Sandy Rios. President Concerned Women for America, Washington, D.C.
Pat Robertson. Founder and President, Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN)
Adrian Rogers. Pastor Belleview Baptist Church, Cordova, TN
Gary Rosberg. President America's Family Coaches, Des Moines, IA
Barbara Rosberg. Vice President America's Family Coaches, Des Moines, IA
Phillip Graham Ryken. Senior Minister Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, PA
Thomas Schreiner. Professor The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY
Dal Shealy. President Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Kansas City, MO
Paul Sheppard. Senior Pastor Abundant Life Christian Fellowship, Menlo Park, CA
R. C. Sproul. Chairman Ligonier Ministries, Lake Mary, FL
Randy Stinson. Exec. Director Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Louisville, KY
Charles R. Swindoll. Senior Pastor, Sonebriar Community Church, Frisco, TX Chancellor, Dallas Theological Seminary
Joni Eareckson Tada. Founder & President Joni & Friends, Agoura, CA
Terry Taylor. President Emeritus U.S. Navigators
Derek W. H. Thomas. Professor Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, MS
John F. Walvoord. Chancellor Emeritus Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX
Bruce Ware. Professor The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY
Stu Weber. Pastor Good Shepherd Community Church, Gresham, OR
William C. Weinrich. Professor Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN
Dean O. Wenthe. President Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN
Donald E. Wildmon. President American Family Association, Tupelo, MS
Bruce Wilkinson. Global Vision Resources, Norcross, GA
P. Bunny Wilson. Fellowship West International Ministries, Pasadena, CA

Reynolds357
May 13th 2008, 09:02 PM
Greetings Reynolds,

All due respect . . .

You state the translators of the TNIV plainly went against the manuscripts to produce a gender neutral, more inclusive Bible. Then you state the KJV had no desire or bias to create a gender neutrality.

1500+ times where the KJV translates masculine terms as neutral doesn't create gender neutrality? If 1500+ doesn't, then how many times does? 1600? 1700?

Again, KJV translators did this without stating they were going to do so. The TNIV translators were upfront about it.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

The KJV translators had no bias to make the KJV gender neutral. That is the key, they had no bias. What possible bias would they have had at that point in history? What was the status of women in England at that time? There was no women's liberation movement going on. TNIV was translated with an agenda. They translators intentionally strayed from manuscript. There lies the difference. The translators of KJV did not announce that they were making changes because their desire was not to change the meaning of the manuscript, their desire was to render the most accurate translation. The NIV was an attempt to render an accurate translation. TNIV was an attempt to alter scripture.

TrustGzus
May 13th 2008, 09:42 PM
Greetings Reynolds,

How do you justify the KJV over 1500 times changing the masculine into a neutral gender and not level the same charges against the KJV? If one does it less than 1600 times, does this constitute no bias but if we cross 1600 times, we now have a bias? How many times makes it a bias or agenda? Where is the line in the sand crossed?

Back to John 14:23, since the Holy Spirit used masculine pronouns only do you believe that in regard to females who obey Jesus' words, that the Father will or will not love them or make his abode with them?

The guys listed in that statement you attached, many of them have been involved with Bible translations in which they made masculine terms gender neutral. Is it alright for them to do that in translations like the English Standard Version, and then condemn the TNIV for doing the same thing?

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Reynolds357
May 14th 2008, 02:42 PM
Greetings Reynolds,

How do you justify the KJV over 1500 times changing the masculine into a neutral gender and not level the same charges against the KJV? If one does it less than 1600 times, does this constitute no bias but if we cross 1600 times, we now have a bias? How many times makes it a bias or agenda? Where is the line in the sand crossed?

Back to John 14:23, since the Holy Spirit used masculine pronouns only do you believe that in regard to females who obey Jesus' words, that the Father will or will not love them or make his abode with them?

The guys listed in that statement you attached, many of them have been involved with Bible translations in which they made masculine terms gender neutral. Is it alright for them to do that in translations like the English Standard Version, and then condemn the TNIV for doing the same thing?

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

With the KJV, it is not the number of changes, it is the significance of and mtivation behind the changes that differ from TNIV. The translators of the KJV were not altering manuscript to appeal to a target audience of women and the politically correct. The translators of TNIV were doing just that, altering manuscript to appeal to a target audience. The translators likewise took liberty in verses where there alteration definitely changed meaning.

Back to John 14:23. Do you believe it is inspired of the Holy Spirit? Do you believe John correctly wrote as the Holy Spirit inspired, or did he error thus making his account of the Gospel an error?
The Holy Spirit inspired John to write in the masculine in that passage. Was the Holy Spirit wrong? No, He was and is never wrong. Does the Holy Spirit need correcting by 20h and 21st century scholars? No, He does not.

I am sure you can point them out, but I have not noticed the blaring changes in the ESV that I have noticed in TVIV. I will also add that own an ESV, but hardly ever read it. Point out the changes, and I might throw it away also.

Blessings,
Hal

TrustGzus
May 14th 2008, 03:43 PM
Greetings Hal,

In regard to John 14:23, yes, I believe the Holy Spirit inspired it. Yes, he used masculine pronouns. Now while I answered your question, I might have overlooked your answer to my question about John 14:23. If you answered it, could you please repost it while I repeat the question. If females at Bibleforums.com love Jesus and obey his teaching, will the Father come to them and make His abode with them, or do only us males have that benefit?

FYI, I'm not trying to be a pain the behind. I'm not trying to make you like the TNIV.

Grace & peace to you, Hal.

Joe

Reynolds357
May 14th 2008, 05:18 PM
Greetings Hal,

In regard to John 14:23, yes, I believe the Holy Spirit inspired it. Yes, he used masculine pronouns. Now while I answered your question, I might have overlooked your answer to my question about John 14:23. If you answered it, could you please repost it while I repeat the question. If females at Bibleforums.com love Jesus and obey his teaching, will the Father come to them and make His abode with them, or do only us males have that benefit?

FYI, I'm not trying to be a pain the behind. I'm not trying to make you like the TNIV.

Grace & peace to you, Hal.

Joe

Yes, I BELIEVE the verse would be true for females also. However, even though I am 99.99% confident my belief is correct, the text did not say that. If I were translating the text, I would have to translate it true to manuscript, not true to my belief. There lies the problem, TNIV was translated to conform to a belief system. It was not translated true to manuscript. The text must say what the text says. If it has beliefs of the translator written into the text, it is then commenatary, not scripture.

Blessings,
Hal

TrustGzus
May 14th 2008, 05:33 PM
Hey Hal,

Are you being fair in your standard? It seems as if you apply one standard to the TNIV and a different standard to the KJV.

The reality is 1500 times of making masculine terms in the original languages into gender neutral terms in the English is not an accident.

All the questions you've asked can equally be put to the other side. Let me list some of your questions and apply the standard equally across the board.

You wrote in your last post . . .
It was not translated true to manuscript. The text must say what the text says. If it has beliefs of the translator written into the text, it is then commenatary, not scripture.If that is the case, then every time the KJV is not translated true to text, it is a commentary, not Scripture. However, you claim if the TNIV does this, it is heretical. It is the KJV, then it is not heretical.

The post before that you wrote . . .
The Holy Spirit inspired John to write in the masculine in that passage. Was the Holy Spirit wrong? No, He was and is never wrong. Does the Holy Spirit need correcting by 20h and 21st century scholars? No, He does not.When the KJV translators did their translation, was the Holy Spirit wrong in His gender choices? No, he was not. Did the Holy Spirit need correcting by 17th century scholars? No, he did not.

Yet they did this themselves over and over again. However, once again, you claim if the TNIV does this, it is heretical. If it is the KJV, then it is not heretical.

Do you see the inconsistency that I am seeing? If I take your approach, I cannot apply it only to the TNIV, I must apply it to the KJV and every other translation. Well, if I do that, then I condemn all of them . . . unless you can tell me the difference. Or if you can tell me how many times it is okay to make masculines into neutrals, i.e. where that line in the sand is drawn.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Reynolds357
May 14th 2008, 06:38 PM
Hey Hal,

Are you being fair in your standard? It seems as if you apply one standard to the TNIV and a different standard to the KJV.

The reality is 1500 times of making masculine terms in the original languages into gender neutral terms in the English is not an accident.

All the questions you've asked can equally be put to the other side. Let me list some of your questions and apply the standard equally across the board.

You wrote in your last post . . . If that is the case, then every time the KJV is not translated true to text, it is a commentary, not Scripture. However, you claim if the TNIV does this, it is heretical. It is the KJV, then it is not heretical.

The post before that you wrote . . . When the KJV translators did their translation, was the Holy Spirit wrong in His gender choices? No, he was not. Did the Holy Spirit need correcting by 17th century scholars? No, he did not.

Yet they did this themselves over and over again. However, once again, you claim if the TNIV does this, it is heretical. If it is the KJV, then it is not heretical.

Do you see the inconsistency that I am seeing? If I take your approach, I cannot apply it only to the TNIV, I must apply it to the KJV and every other translation. Well, if I do that, then I condemn all of them . . . unless you can tell me the difference. Or if you can tell me how many times it is okay to make masculines into neutrals, i.e. where that line in the sand is drawn.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

The number of changes is not the issue with me. The issue with me is severity of changes and motivation behind the changes. The translators of the KJV made no changes to the scripture that change the meanings of verses. TNIV did. The translators of the KJV had no target audience to conform to with their translation. TNIV was translated for a target audience. TNIV intentionally altered manuscript to make it appealing to a particular audience and generate sales to that audience. TNIV intentionally altered the manuscript to appeal to certain groups of people and thus generate revenue. KJV did none of those.

Blessings,
Hal

TrustGzus
May 14th 2008, 07:51 PM
The translators of the KJV made no changes to the scripture that change the meanings of verses. TNIV did. So the KJV making "sons" into "children" doesn't change meaning. Let's take Genesis 3:16 . . .
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (electronic ed. of the 1769 edition of the 1611 Authorized Version.) (Ge 3:16). Bellingham WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


The Hebrew word for children is בָנִ֑י . It is plural and it is masculine. No if's, and's or but's about it.

Yet the KJV translators chose a gender neutral term. Now if I apply your principle from an earlier post . . .
It was not translated true to manuscript. The text must say what the text says. If it has beliefs of the translator written into the text, it is then commenatary, not scripture.It was not translated true to text using these terms the way you have used them in this thread. It is a therefore a commentary.

Your default position has therefore been throughout our discussion to go to the motive.

Let's look at another verse . . .

The first one to plead his cause seems right,

Until his neighbor comes and examines him.
The New King James Version. 1982 (Pr 18:17). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


How do you know the motive of the TNIV translators? Do you know who they are? Have you talked to them or corresponded with them?

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

Reynolds357
May 15th 2008, 03:26 AM
So the KJV making "sons" into "children" doesn't change meaning. Let's take Genesis 3:16 . . . The Hebrew word for children is בָנִ֑י . It is plural and it is masculine. No if's, and's or but's about it.

Yet the KJV translators chose a gender neutral term. Now if I apply your principle from an earlier post . . . It was not translated true to text using these terms the way you have used them in this thread. It is a therefore a commentary.

Your default position has therefore been throughout our discussion to go to the motive.

Let's look at another verse . . . How do you know the motive of the TNIV translators? Do you know who they are? Have you talked to them or corresponded with them?

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

The motive of the translators was to create a gender neutral Bible. I do not know the translators, but I do remember the advertisements leading up the the release of TNIV.

JordanW
May 15th 2008, 05:13 AM
Quick question: How can I determine if my King James Bible is the correct translation?

TrustGzus
May 15th 2008, 05:32 AM
Jordan, you can really only do that one verse or passage at a time. No translation nails every verse every time.

You know what you might want to get . . . a parallel Bible (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=parallel+bible&x=0&y=0). I'd recommend one with four translations. If the KJV reads similar to others, then it's fine. If the KJV reads really differently, then either that verse was poorly translated or, more likely, English has changed and a more modern rendering captures the meaning more accurately in the 21st century.

The same can be said for any other translation in a parallel Bible. If one translation seems to be saying something really different than the others, chances are that the one that is really different is probably off.

The only other thing I can recommend is start learning the languages Jordan. That way no one can tell you what to believe, you can check it out for yourself. That may sound like a huge task. But if you start today, who knows where you'll be in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years from now. You are an extremely young man. You have plenty of time to become a true scholar if you start now.

Having said all that, the latest revision of the KJV that you find in stores is the 1769 Balaney edition. You were born in 1989. That's a 220 year gap. I think you can find a translation that speaks your language a little better. If you are concerned about the textual issues, then use the New King James. It's a great update of the KJV (though KJVO advocates won't agree - if need be we can talk about that disagreement too).

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

JordanW
May 15th 2008, 06:21 AM
Thanks man! I use the NKJV regularly now, but I ordered a cheap KJV Bible (just the text, no commentary) just to have around, and it's from Thomas Nelson Publishers, maybe that would help?

TrustGzus
May 15th 2008, 11:25 AM
Sure, Jordan, that helps. The problem you are experiencing is simply an English-speaking problem. For over a millennium people didn't own copies of the Bible. Many other languages only have one translation to choose from. If God was limited to a single translation, then the Kingdom would be greatly impaired in its progress.

Before the printing press, every copy was hand copied. That also means each copy was unique. No two copies were identical. Through comparing copies, scholars can determine what was originally written. However, imagine being one of those individuals during all those centuries where if you had a copy of Colossians, it was because you labored and made your own copy or you paid a handsome fee to have someone make it. Your copy would have unique differences since people aren't copy machines. Did those people have the Word of God? Did God work in their lives? The answer is yes to both questions.

With any translation you read Jordan, God will work in your life. He is omnipotent, i.e. all powerful. God doesn't look down and see you have a KJV or NIV or TNIV or NASB or the Message or anything else and a force field goes up that blocks His omnipotence. Now each of those translations has its strengths and weaknesses. Some are better in one way and others are better in another way.

The key is to stay away from translations that deliberately distort essential doctrines. A good example is how the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses changes verses that teach Jesus is God. They change those because they don't believe Jesus is God. No Bible you are going to buy off the shelf at your local Christian bookstore has nearly that problem. So buy a handful of translations and compare them. Again, if one is really different from the others on a verse, disregard it at that verse. And then relax! Don't let this issue eat at you. You are living in a time unlike any other time in history and you speak a language that has a unique problem - so many translations that we argue over which is alright and which is not - all the while too many people don't read any of them with any regularity.

Read the Word.

Grace & peace to you,

Joe

daughter
May 15th 2008, 12:06 PM
Hey there... just to add to this thread. I was reading Malachi last night, and I found a passage that really profoundly impacted me. I read it again this morning, only to discover that in modern translations of the Bible this passage in Malachi doesn't exist! It's not even in the New King James...

Does someone more scholarly than me know why the first chapter of Malachi stops at verse fourteen in most translations? The verses in the KJV definitely speak of sins that we see all around us to this day.

Thank you!

DeafPosttrib
May 15th 2008, 12:19 PM
daughter,

Which version, you read on Malachi chapter one?

I did check on KJV, NIV, and NEV on Mal. 1:14. All are right there.

I just wonder, what version, you read? Thanks.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

daughter
May 15th 2008, 12:30 PM
It's alright!! Sorry, I've got a form of dyslexia which affects numbers, and every now and then it rears it's ugly head. The text is actually there, just in chapter 2, not chapter 1!

So, my utter and complete booboo, and I hope you'll forgive me for not considering the possibility of Mary error. For the most part my dyscalculia doesn't cause many problems, but when it does, it's really bad. (This is why I can't drive by the way... literally, I can't tell my left from my right!)

Sorry folks. :blush:

The passage, if you were interested, is chapter 2, verse 17, which seems to me to describe exactly what is wrong with most secular and "spiritual" thought today...

mcgyver
May 15th 2008, 12:31 PM
Hey there... just to add to this thread. I was reading Malachi last night, and I found a passage that really profoundly impacted me. I read it again this morning, only to discover that in modern translations of the Bible this passage in Malachi doesn't exist! It's not even in the New King James...

Does someone more scholarly than me know why the first chapter of Malachi stops at verse fourteen in most translations? The verses in the KJV definitely speak of sins that we see all around us to this day.

Thank you!

Hi Daughter,

That one caught me by surprise :lol:

I hadn't seen a bible that didn't end the first chapter of Malachi at verse 14 :P

I checked against a facsimile AV 1611 that I have, and it ends at Vs 14 also.

I also went the the library at U. Penn. here:

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1002

That link is to an actual AV 1611 that they have in their collection, and have posted online for study....It will take you to the first chapter of Malachi...which also ends at Vs 14.

What Ed. were you using that has additional verses?

mcgyver
May 15th 2008, 12:32 PM
Ahhh...Disregard...we were posting at the same time :)

But still, I'd check out the link! :hug:

daughter
May 15th 2008, 12:51 PM
Thank you! We all know my awful secret now... Seriously, I have to ask my son to help me with the groceries and minding my change, because I'm so bad with numbers. It can be very embarassing. I don't remember my phone number for example, and never have been able to. I can only phone my mother in law on a certain kind of phone that I "know the shape" of her number on the keypad... after nearly twenty years I now remember my father's phone number most of the time. I've forgotten many birthdays, including my own, and... well, you can imagine how embarassing it can be. "How old are you?" And I have to pause and think about it...

DeafPosttrib
May 15th 2008, 12:53 PM
Many years ago, I attended independent fundamental baptist churches. They always use KJV. One church, I attended, it is strong KJV Onlyism. Because they used to loyal Dr. Peter S. Ruckman.

I am sure that some of you already aware of Dr. Peter S. Ruckman.

He is the champion of KJV Onlyism Movement since 1970's to early 1990's. Many years ago, he wrote a booklet on KJV. He said, KJV is a revelation advanced. Revelation advance? He believed KJV is the only "revelation advance". That is his opinion.

Sadly, many churches were divisions and split caused by Dr. Ruckman on KJV Onlyism.

Dr. Ruckman's reputation already ruined. He was divorced 4 times already.

Also, I remember, I read Jack Hyles' church site several years ago. He said, when a person read another version, he is not saved. He said, only KJV can save person.

Hyles is a strong KJV Onlyist.

I am telling you that KJV Onlyism is a cult-like.

I am not saying that I am against KJV. I am sure that several of you in this forum, did read my posts, which I quoted verses from KJV. I do use KJV all the times, that does not mean I am KJV Onlyism.

KJV Onlyism teaches:

1. Only person can be saved by KJV
2. KJV is the ONLY true "inspiration" of God's Word than all other Versions
3. KJV teaches the true doctrines, show that any versions are false doctrines.

I was saved by reading different version in August 17, 1988. I used New English Version Bible, by read and study Revelation. No one witness me how to be saved. I understand Revelation chapter 19, 20, 21, and 22. These are my favorite passages of Revelation. Why? Because Jesus is coming again. Also, I am exciting looking for new heaven and new earth, also New Jersualem.

But, Rev. 20:11-15 that scared me the mostly about cast away in the lake of fire. I do not want go there, and miss Jesus, also, new New Jersualem. So, I bow down and prayer on my bed. Talked to Jesus with sign for about 30 minutes. I told Jesus that I do not want go to lake of fire, and miss him. I told him that I want him to wash all my sins away through his blood. And asked Jesus to come in my heart. I did asked him to forgive my sins.

I was saved on Wednesday August 17, 1988 at 11:35 pm in my old bedroom at parent's house.

NO one witness me how to become saved.

ANY versions can show people to be saved.

Even, Late Dr. John R. Rice said, we can use Catholic Bible to witness gospel to people of Christ to be saved. Because there are truths in Catholic Bible. Dr. Rice was right.

Also, many versions do have truths and doctrines same as KJV do.

Of course, I know that many other versions do omit many verses such as "blood", etc.

But, we have to be open mind, not being narrow mind.

I notice many KJV Onlyists are narrow minds, always like to criticize, and judge each others for using different versions with bad attitudes. That why I am eschew them.

I know MANY good Christians use different versions like NIV, etc. are better than KJV Onlyists. Honest.

So, we should respect them each other with love, not judge one each other for using different versions. Only God knows their hearts.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

DeafPosttrib
May 15th 2008, 01:10 PM
I want to add one thing on Jack Hyles. I went to Hyles' funereal at his church. I was invited visit my old friend's house. A lady told me, when FBC invited Dr. Al Lacy for preaching on KJV. She watched what Dr. Hyles said. When Dr. Hyles jumped, and jumped, and shouted same time said, "KJV!" "KJV!", "KJV!" (in my mind, I was laughed so hard, but I do not want to offend her feeling, I say nothing as what she said). I said to her, "Oh really?" She said, yes.

Sadly, KJV Onlylism is consider as cult-like.

So many baptists churches are already divisions because of KJV Onlyism today.

We have to focus on gospel, and showing our true love, not judge or criticize each other on versions.

Debate on versions is not important. Thank God, that we have Bible. Right? Amen? AMEN!

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

Clifton
May 15th 2008, 01:23 PM
Jordan, you can really only do that one verse or passage at a time. No translation nails every verse every time.

That appears true - if it were not for technology, I would not have access to 50+ Bibles on my computer.:P


You know what you might want to get . . . a parallel Bible (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=parallel+bible&x=0&y=0). I'd recommend one with four translations. If the KJV reads similar to others, then it's fine. If the KJV reads really differently, then either that verse was poorly translated or, more likely, English has changed and a more modern rendering captures the meaning more accurately in the 21st century.Even Noah Webster's 1833 revision of KJV is a bit rough, though, I think it is a good one.


The same can be said for any other translation in a parallel Bible. If one translation seems to be saying something really different than the others, chances are that the one that is really different is probably off.

The only other thing I can recommend is start learning the languages Jordan. That way no one can tell you what to believe, you can check it out for yourself. That may sound like a huge task. But if you start today, who knows where you'll be in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years from now. You are an extremely young man. You have plenty of time to become a true scholar if you start now.

Having said all that, the latest revision of the KJV that you find in stores is the 1769 Balaney edition. You were born in 1989. That's a 220 year gap. I think you can find a translation that speaks your language a little better. If you are concerned about the textual issues, then use the New King James. It's a great update of the KJV (though KJVO advocates won't agree - if need be we can talk about that disagreement too).If the Lord tarries beyond this century, it may be of no surprise if there are NKJVO groupies in the next century... and other ones as well.:P

Blessings.

daughter
May 15th 2008, 01:29 PM
Hey DeathPostTrib... I must say, I loved your account of being saved. You were afraid of the lake of fire, yes... but worse than that, you didn't want to miss Jesus! That's true love you had right there, and thank God He put that love in your heart.

Thank you so much for sharing your testimony.

Reynolds357
May 15th 2008, 02:00 PM
I want to add one thing on Jack Hyles. I went to Hyles' funereal at his church. I was invited visit my old friend's house. A lady told me, when FBC invited Dr. Al Lacy for preaching on KJV. She watched what Dr. Hyles said. When Dr. Hyles jumped, and jumped, and shouted same time said, "KJV!" "KJV!", "KJV!" (in my mind, I was laughed so hard, but I do not want to offend her feeling, I say nothing as what she said). I said to her, "Oh really?" She said, yes.

Sadly, KJV Onlylism is consider as cult-like.

So many baptists churches are already divisions because of KJV Onlyism today.

We have to focus on gospel, and showing our true love, not judge or criticize each other on versions.

Debate on versions is not important. Thank God, that we have Bible. Right? Amen? AMEN!

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

It is sad that so many hold the KJV only stance. I think the reason for the stance is more historical than anything else. Even though it was not the first modern "translation," the Living bible was the first modern "translation" to gain a foothold in the South. I can not speak for the rest of the nation, I can only speak for the area of the nation I am from. The Living Bible hit the Baptist churches in the south and caused an uproar because as we all know it is not really even a translation, it is a paraphrase. We are all well aware that the living bible is in all actuality a mixture of accurate translation and pure commentary. Because of the Living Bible, many churches in the south adopted the "King James Only" position. They have never opened their eyes to even examine a modern translation. It is my opinion that there are both excellent and awful modern translation. However, we should not throw all of them out due to shortcomings, or even outright errors in the others.

The Gospel is Living and Powerful. However one must be able to understand it to see that power and receive that life. It is my opinion from many years of observation that it is simply impossible for some to receive the gospel through the "classic" translations such as the KJV.

I know that the followin passage of scripture was in reference to tongues, but I think it als applicable to the King Jams only debate.

I Cor 14:9
So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

The same is true of bible translations. If the reader does not understand what they read, is it profitable to them? Should everyone be educated in Classic English? The KJV camp says yes. To them, my question is why do you want to lay that burden at the feet of a generation that is not educated in Classic English? The best biblical texts are in Hebrew and Greek. The KJV only camp desires the "best Bible." If they truly desired the "best Bible," they would learn Hebrew and Greek. However 99.9% of them do not read Hebrew or Greek. They are unwilling to accept the burden of learning those "Classic languages," but they would burden someone who does not understand "Classic English" with the burden of learning it. Why is the KJV, which is a translation done by men, treated as "inspired" by the KJV only camp and all other translations dismissed as "the work of men?" It simply puzzles me that there is such a double standard in the KJV only camp.

mcgyver
May 15th 2008, 02:36 PM
From the preface to the AV 1611 by the translators:

"An answer to the imputations of our adversaries"

"Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God."

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

seamus414
May 15th 2008, 04:21 PM
I think it is ironic that the KJV onlyists accept a translation of a Bible that was authorized by and translated for a church that they would cast off as in grave doctrinal error (Anglican Church). I wonder why they think the Bible us Anglicans made is trustworthy but the church from which it comes is not!

By the way, us Anglicans tend to call this Bible The Authorized Bible not the KJV.

TrustGzus
May 15th 2008, 11:55 PM
Hey Hal,

I donít want to go in circles beating over and over the same drum. Let me put together a summary statement on why I think your charge of heresy is inaccurate (I donít think the TNIV can properly be labeled as heretical) and why it is inconsistent (if your principles are applied even handedly, then the KJV is guilty of heresy Ė and every other translation). You can have the final word OR we can talk about this more in a separate thread dedicated to this issue.

Let me state before continuing that I appreciate your cool tone. Youíve disagreed graciously. I appreciate that immensely.

Proverbs states . . .

17 The first one to plead his cause seems right,
Until his neighbor comes and examines him.
The New King James Version. 1982 (Pr 18:17). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


The translators of the TNIV are not feminists or liberals or anything offensive to conservative Protestants. They are conservative Evangelicals. Many are complementarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism), i.e. they believe in the traditional roles of men and woman. Their works are available to read. There is no need to speculate about them or their motives.

If we take the Genesis 3:16 example, the Hebrew is masculine. Therefore, in sorrow Eve would bring forth sons. Yet, the KJV translators chose to translate so that in sorrow Eve would bring forth both, sons and daughters, by using a neutral term children. That's one of over 1500 examples I can use.

When the TNIV does the same thing with John 14:23 that the KJV did with Genesis 3:16, you charge the TNIV translators with wrong doing. Yet you stated that you are 99.99% sure that the TNIV rendition is proper in the application at John 14:23.

I fear from talking to you that if the KJV had used sons in Genesis 3:16 and the TNIV used children, then you would charge the TNIV translators with heresy. That's what I'm getting from our discussion. If the KJV did it, it's fine. If the TNIV translators did it, then it's heresy.

Using your definitions throughout the thread, this changed the meaning at Genesis 3:16. I don't know the motives of the KJV translators for the hundreds of times they did this. I can't ask. They are dead. I give them the benefit of the doubt. I think they made the right choice at that verse. The TNIV translators are not dead. Do you believe they are innocent till proven guilty or guilty till proven innocent? I give them the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, I've read many articles from them. I've listened to debates with them. They can be corresponded with. They'll write back.

Jesus tells us in John 13:34 that the world will know that we are his disciples by the love we have for one another. Galatians 5:22 tells us that love is the fruit of the Holy Spirit. What does love look like? 1 Corinthians 13 tells us that Love hopes all things. Love believes all things. In other words, love gives the benefit of the doubt . . . especially to fellow believers. Love, when confronted with questionable circumstances, puts the best motive forward to someone's actions until proven otherwise.

Heresy is a strong charge. At first you claimed that they make God gender neutral. When I asked you to show me where you backed off on that claim, but held on to the heresy charge. Yet the actions that the TNIV translators have done is something the KJV translators did many, many times.

Check out both sides like Proverbs 18:17 says. Check it out objectively. Don't be pro- or anti- anything. Take a "just the facts, ma'am" attitude.

We must judge actions, not motives. Judging motives is what our liberal courts are doing in trying to put hate crimes into place. Killing a man is a crime. Try a man for murder. But nowadays they want to not only try for murder, now they want to charge with a hate crime too because the murdered man perhaps turned out to be a homosexual. The issue isn't whether or not the man was killed because the murderer didn't like homosexuals. The issue is that the man was murdered. Motives are used to establish why people did certain actions, but people are tried for the actions, not the motive. The KJV translators did the same deed/action hundreds of times that the TNIV translators did. Motive is not relevant. And as I mentioned above, knowing the background of the TNIV translators, listening to interviews and debates, reading their books, I'm not convinced some of the information presented has been an accurate portrayal of the TNIV nor its translators.

I've read a lot of the anti-TNIV material. I think after examining the TNIV itself, and hearing the arguments from both sides, that the anti-TNIV arguments are weak and that there is a lot of double-standards being applied. One standard for the TNIV; another for everything else.

I think there is a lot of bandwagon reactionary behavior. I can pull up a list of scholars comparable to the one you quoted earlier of conservative Evangelicals that think the TNIV is fine. So counting noses doesn't prove either view. You bring up one list. I can bring up an opposite list of equally respectable names. What does that prove? Nothing for either side of the debate.

I'd encourage you to recognize that other languages use gender differently than English. This must be accounted for in translation. It's not always black-and-white. When a material object is masculine or feminine in Hebrew or Greek, should we use he or she for pronouns or it?

Take Matthew 2:9, star is masculine. Should Matthew 2:9 read After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until he came and stood over the place where the Child was.

Does a translation merely become a commentary if translators use it at that point instead of he. Are they making a 21st century decision to over turn the Holy Spirit in Matthew 2:9? Of course not. Stars aren't masculine in English, they are neuter.

Jesus didn't come to just impact males only. Many passages that are masculine in gender have application to both males and females. The TNIV translators, recognizing the difference between English and the original languages, i.e. how the originals use gender differently than English does, with much thought and conversation (sometimes they discussed for hours such things as how the placement of a comma would impact a passage) just carried on the work of translating and made judgments just as the KJV translators had to.

If you can demonstrate that the TNIV overturns


the bodily resurrection of Jesus
salvation by grace through faith alone
the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible
the full humanity and divinity of Jesus
the virgin birth
the Trinity
and/or the second coming

then I'll join you in declaring it heretical. But if the best you can come up with is gender changes to passages that the KJV didn't do gender changes to, yet the KJV did similar changes to other passages, then I must conclude you aren't being fair but are upholding one standard for the KJV and a different standard for the TNIV.

Thanks for the conversation. FYI, I agree with so many other things you posted in this thread. If you simply didn't care for the TNIV, I could agree to disagree. I simply think the term heresy is overly strong.

Grace & peace to you, Hal.

Joe

Crosslight
May 16th 2008, 03:03 AM
This has been a wonderful thread to read. Normally, I avoid the issue of translations, due to the mean-ness that can arise.

Someone on this long thread said that because of all the stuff on bibles, they had, at one time, lost faith in the Word. I've been there.

Someone else said the the common man/woman/children.. ect, (politically correct? lol) who do not read and study the Word as most of us here discussing this issue, do not understand the old language. And, as time goes on in history, the old language is getting older. I sort of stick to my NKJV due to the fact that my instructor uses it. But I really am fond of the NASV (Updated is all I have) and the New Living Translation. The Lord really speaks to me in those versions too.

Be blessed in Jesus,
stace\o/

daughter
May 16th 2008, 11:01 AM
I really like the point you make, Joe, that gender is different in the biblical languages than it is in English. For example, I like the Holman translation, but they have made a mistake I believe. In trying to avoid the horrible "gender neutral" rubbish that tries to erase any differences between men and women, they assign gender to every situation according to our cultural stereotypes.

For example, the KJV translates adelphoi as "brethren", which in those days meant men and women who were related. It was "gender neutral" as it was understood at the time.

Holman's translates it "brothers", which seems to imply that women are not part of the circle.

I know people who don't understand Greek, or the evolution of language, who use "brethren" incorrectly to assert that women were not filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost... even though we know they were in the room, and covered by "brethren." Yet these people say "brethren only refers to men." No it doesn't!

I do dislike it when people base their theology on a mistranslation. :rolleyes:

TrustGzus
May 16th 2008, 02:33 PM
Hey Daughter,

Nicely said and you are absolutely correct. I have two copies of the Holman Christian Standard Bible. I have not read the HCSB yet. Every year I read the Old Testament once and the New twice. The HCSB is on my "to do" list.

I do know that the HCSB and the ESV were both reactionary to the gender sensitive trend. However, as you said, language use has changed.

Sometimes people honestly misinterpret words like "brethren" to mean only men when the Greek did not mean only males.

Thus if a translation is too formal and people misinterpret it because of its extreme formality, is it a good translation? At the points where people misinterpret it because of its formality, I'd have to say "no" it's not a good translation. At that point translating functionally rather than formally is better translating.

The bottom line of all of this is that translating is a complicated issue. Us non-professionals think we can look a text sometimes and criticize the translators. It's easy to do. I've done way too much of that in my life. But once you read some of their books and talk to them, learn a few things, and put yourself in their shoes, I have great respect for all of them. It's not easy to do what they do. If they tried to satisfy everyone, they'd have given up a long time ago and we all would be forced to learn Greek and Hebrew as their wouldn't be any English translations.

Crosslight
May 16th 2008, 02:52 PM
Hey

I have considered learning Greek and Hebrew, but then, what text would I study from? Isn't that one of the problems with the many different translations?

Praise the Lord for the Holy Spirit who teaches us all things. He can quicken the word in our hearts.


stace\o/

Clifton
May 16th 2008, 04:01 PM
Hey

I have considered learning Greek and Hebrew, but then, what text would I study from? Isn't that one of the problems with the many different translations?

All of them - it's fun, enlightening, etc.

On a comparison of texts, you usually get to know variants and alternative readings (though even some English Bibles provide some of those). Computer Bible Software provides help and aid in those as well.


Praise the Lord for the Holy Spirit who teaches us all things. He can quicken the word in our hearts.

:amen:

Blessings.

mcgyver
May 16th 2008, 04:26 PM
The bottom line of all of this is that translating is a complicated issue. Us non-professionals think we can look a text sometimes and criticize the translators. It's easy to do. I've done way too much of that in my life. But once you read some of their books and talk to them, learn a few things, and put yourself in their shoes, I have great respect for all of them. It's not easy to do what they do. If they tried to satisfy everyone, they'd have given up a long time ago and we all would be forced to learn Greek and Hebrew as their wouldn't be any English translations.

This is a great point!

I think that this serves to remind us just how blessed we really are to have a variety of translations available for our use!!

We have at our disposal wonderful tools to really get a sense of the scripture...We might read a passage in the (for example) NASB that we struggle to understand, and when we look at the same passage in the NIV, HCSB, KJV, or others we say "oh wow" (as the proverbial light comes on).

I personally am very grateful for the different translations that we have, and for the work of the men who have tackled the difficult task of translation! :pp

Reynolds357
May 16th 2008, 08:26 PM
Hey Hal,

I donít want to go in circles beating over and over the same drum. Let me put together a summary statement on why I think your charge of heresy is inaccurate (I donít think the TNIV can properly be labeled as heretical) and why it is inconsistent (if your principles are applied even handedly, then the KJV is guilty of heresy Ė and every other translation). You can have the final word OR we can talk about this more in a separate thread dedicated to this issue.

Let me state before continuing that I appreciate your cool tone. Youíve disagreed graciously. I appreciate that immensely.

Proverbs states . . . The translators of the TNIV are not feminists or liberals or anything offensive to conservative Protestants. They are conservative Evangelicals. Many are complementarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarianism), i.e. they believe in the traditional roles of men and woman. Their works are available to read. There is no need to speculate about them or their motives.

If we take the Genesis 3:16 example, the Hebrew is masculine. Therefore, in sorrow Eve would bring forth sons. Yet, the KJV translators chose to translate so that in sorrow Eve would bring forth both, sons and daughters, by using a neutral term children. That's one of over 1500 examples I can use.

When the TNIV does the same thing with John 14:23 that the KJV did with Genesis 3:16, you charge the TNIV translators with wrong doing. Yet you stated that you are 99.99% sure that the TNIV rendition is proper in the application at John 14:23.

I fear from talking to you that if the KJV had used sons in Genesis 3:16 and the TNIV used children, then you would charge the TNIV translators with heresy. That's what I'm getting from our discussion. If the KJV did it, it's fine. If the TNIV translators did it, then it's heresy.

Using your definitions throughout the thread, this changed the meaning at Genesis 3:16. I don't know the motives of the KJV translators for the hundreds of times they did this. I can't ask. They are dead. I give them the benefit of the doubt. I think they made the right choice at that verse. The TNIV translators are not dead. Do you believe they are innocent till proven guilty or guilty till proven innocent? I give them the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, I've read many articles from them. I've listened to debates with them. They can be corresponded with. They'll write back.

Jesus tells us in John 13:34 that the world will know that we are his disciples by the love we have for one another. Galatians 5:22 tells us that love is the fruit of the Holy Spirit. What does love look like? 1 Corinthians 13 tells us that Love hopes all things. Love believes all things. In other words, love gives the benefit of the doubt . . . especially to fellow believers. Love, when confronted with questionable circumstances, puts the best motive forward to someone's actions until proven otherwise.

Heresy is a strong charge. At first you claimed that they make God gender neutral. When I asked you to show me where you backed off on that claim, but held on to the heresy charge. Yet the actions that the TNIV translators have done is something the KJV translators did many, many times.

Check out both sides like Proverbs 18:17 says. Check it out objectively. Don't be pro- or anti- anything. Take a "just the facts, ma'am" attitude.

We must judge actions, not motives. Judging motives is what our liberal courts are doing in trying to put hate crimes into place. Killing a man is a crime. Try a man for murder. But nowadays they want to not only try for murder, now they want to charge with a hate crime too because the murdered man perhaps turned out to be a homosexual. The issue isn't whether or not the man was killed because the murderer didn't like homosexuals. The issue is that the man was murdered. Motives are used to establish why people did certain actions, but people are tried for the actions, not the motive. The KJV translators did the same deed/action hundreds of times that the TNIV translators did. Motive is not relevant. And as I mentioned above, knowing the background of the TNIV translators, listening to interviews and debates, reading their books, I'm not convinced some of the information presented has been an accurate portrayal of the TNIV nor its translators.

I've read a lot of the anti-TNIV material. I think after examining the TNIV itself, and hearing the arguments from both sides, that the anti-TNIV arguments are weak and that there is a lot of double-standards being applied. One standard for the TNIV; another for everything else.

I think there is a lot of bandwagon reactionary behavior. I can pull up a list of scholars comparable to the one you quoted earlier of conservative Evangelicals that think the TNIV is fine. So counting noses doesn't prove either view. You bring up one list. I can bring up an opposite list of equally respectable names. What does that prove? Nothing for either side of the debate.

I'd encourage you to recognize that other languages use gender differently than English. This must be accounted for in translation. It's not always black-and-white. When a material object is masculine or feminine in Hebrew or Greek, should we use he or she for pronouns or it?

Take Matthew 2:9, star is masculine. Should Matthew 2:9 read After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until he came and stood over the place where the Child was.

Does a translation merely become a commentary if translators use it at that point instead of he. Are they making a 21st century decision to over turn the Holy Spirit in Matthew 2:9? Of course not. Stars aren't masculine in English, they are neuter.

Jesus didn't come to just impact males only. Many passages that are masculine in gender have application to both males and females. The TNIV translators, recognizing the difference between English and the original languages, i.e. how the originals use gender differently than English does, with much thought and conversation (sometimes they discussed for hours such things as how the placement of a comma would impact a passage) just carried on the work of translating and made judgments just as the KJV translators had to.

If you can demonstrate that the TNIV overturns


the bodily resurrection of Jesus
salvation by grace through faith alone
the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible
the full humanity and divinity of Jesus
the virgin birth
the Trinity
and/or the second coming
then I'll join you in declaring it heretical. But if the best you can come up with is gender changes to passages that the KJV didn't do gender changes to, yet the KJV did similar changes to other passages, then I must conclude you aren't being fair but are upholding one standard for the KJV and a different standard for the TNIV.

Thanks for the conversation. FYI, I agree with so many other things you posted in this thread. If you simply didn't care for the TNIV, I could agree to disagree. I simply think the term heresy is overly strong.

Grace & peace to you, Hal.

Joe

I also have enjoyed the very civil discussion we have had over the issue of the TNIV. You have been most gracious with your responses to me on this subject.

It would be fair to say that I probably do hold an inconsistent view on the TNIV if we strictly judge it by the same standard we judge the KJV by. If I am correct, the KJV has about 1600 cases of gender swapping. However, the vast majority of these deal with the gender of an object. They are not highly critical to the meaning of the verses. Would I be happier if they did not exist at all? Yes. However, TNIV 2005 contains app. 3600 differences. Of those, many dramatically alter the meaning of verses. As you correctly pointed out, with rare exception, an object in English is not a he or a she. If an object is not a she in English, I have no real problem calling the object an "it." However, a son is still a son in english. There is no need to change him to a child, or to children.
James 1:12 is a perfect example or TNIV changing meaning. In most cases the KJV preserves the meaning of the manuscript. TNIV has taken passages that apply to a single man, or person, and made them apply to a collective body. This was done in their attempt to create a gender neutral Bible. Prior to its publication Zondervan was billing the 2002 TNIV as a "gender neutral" Bible. That is what the translation was billed by the publisher to be. I am aware that many of the translators are conservative, but it is my opinion that they succomed to the pressures of Zondervan to create a Bible that intentionally strayed from manuscript to satisfy a target audience. The translators of TNIV are not bad people, but it is my belief that they did intentionally stray from manuscript for the purpose of creating a "gender neutral" Bible. In the pre-release exercpts we received of the Bible before the 2002 was published, God was referenced many times as parent, not father. I assume that this was probably corrected in the 2002 before going to press. Zondervan was flooded with opposition to TNIV 2002. Many were threatening complete boycot of Zondervan publishing. I am sure if the correction was not made in 2002, it was corrected in 2005. I do not read the TNIV, so I could not say for sure on that subject.

Why I call TNIV Heresy? Heresy is a word that means many things to many people in the Christian community. The loose definition I apply and have always applied is "a teaching that strays from what has been traditionally taught by the Church." In my opinion, Why is TNIV Heresy and KJV not? KJV is the traditional, accepted translation of the English Speaking Church. TNIV makes changes that are inconsistent with manuscript and make the verses read differently than what has been accepted by the Church for the past several hundred years. In my mind, it is heresy. My method for making that determination may or may not be fair, I will readily admit that.:):)

Blessings,
Hal

Scubadude
May 16th 2008, 09:12 PM
Just wanted to say that I am enjoying your discussion. Agree or disagree, it is very encouraging to see the respect expressed on this thread.

I'm realizing my brain has grown lazy over the years, but maybe I'll get to chat with you all in the future. :wave:

God Bless
Kevin

Reynolds357
May 17th 2008, 02:26 AM
Just wanted to say that I am enjoying your discussion. Agree or disagree, it is very encouraging to see the respect expressed on this thread.

I'm realizing my brain has grown lazy over the years, but maybe I'll get to chat with you all in the future. :wave:

God Bless
Kevin

From your screen name, it looks like we could probably chat about scuba diving. I do not do much open water anymore, but I am an avid Cave diver.

Scubadude
May 19th 2008, 09:05 PM
From your screen name, it looks like we could probably chat about scuba diving. I do not do much open water anymore, but I am an avid Cave diver.

Love to chat about scuba with you sometime. I only have a years experience, but love the sport. There are some nice caves here in Hawaii!

I'm not trying to change the subject (even though I have). Haven't been a member of a church for 10 years now. Not sure why, but it seems like a good time to repent. It's encouraging to hear Christians argue without the sound of eyes getting gouged out, though. Don't know that I'm there yet, but willing to move in that direction.

BTW: Since I already gotten things off subject....... Do I need to give a blood sample to be able to view the public profiles? I'm just saying

Scubadude
May 20th 2008, 12:15 AM
A cowboy walks into a bar and orders a steak with his whiskey. After he finishes his meal, he pulls his gun and fires once in the air then goes away. He eats, shoots, and leaves.

A panda's diet is very delicate. In fact, it will only eat a few things. It eats shoots and leaves. (Taken from a book I read with the same name in bold)

I'm reading this thread and thinking that a TON of intellectual energy is being pored into this debate. It's a lot of fun to listen in. Kind of like watching football with all the surprise moves and end runs and such. I can't help but wonder maybe you're all correct?

Punctuation is only a recent phenomenon. The early readers of the scriptures didn't have the 'benefit' of a clearly placed comma, following the rules of grammar we have today. A passage can mean very different things (Duhh) and still be correct.

Reynolds357
May 20th 2008, 01:59 AM
Love to chat about scuba with you sometime. I only have a years experience, but love the sport. There are some nice caves here in Hawaii!

I'm not trying to change the subject (even though I have). Haven't been a member of a church for 10 years now. Not sure why, but it seems like a good time to repent. It's encouraging to hear Christians argue without the sound of eyes getting gouged out, though. Don't know that I'm there yet, but willing to move in that direction.

BTW: Since I already gotten things off subject....... Do I need to give a blood sample to be able to view the public profiles? I'm just saying


As to viewing the profiles, I am not sure what you have to do to be able to read them. I am new here myself.
Now is always a good time to repent. I spent many years wandering in the World. I rededicated my life to Christ in 2001 and have found un-imaginable fulfillment and Joy in Him. I was saved when I was young and slipped back into the world. I always felt like I could not come back into fellowship with Christ until I cleaned my life Up. The problem was I could not clean my life up. I came back to Christ and with the help of the Holy Spirit, my life in essence cleaned itsself up. Everything sinful that I used to enjoy, I suddeny developed a deep contempt for. Jesus really did make me a new creature in Him.

Blessings,
Hal

Scubadude
May 20th 2008, 03:47 PM
Now is always a good time to repent. I spent many years wandering in the World. I rededicated my life to Christ in 2001 and have found un-imaginable fulfillment and Joy in Him. I was saved when I was young and slipped back into the world. I always felt like I could not come back into fellowship with Christ until I cleaned my life Up. The problem was I could not clean my life up. I came back to Christ and with the help of the Holy Spirit, my life in essence cleaned itsself up. Everything sinful that I used to enjoy, I suddeny developed a deep contempt for. Jesus really did make me a new creature in Him.
Blessings,
Hal


Hi, Hal.

"Get plugged in". Thats the last phrase I remember hearing when I asked the Lord why I was working so hard in the Church. For 20 years I had been involved. Many, many Churches, para-church organizations, ministries, discipling, bible studies, scripture memory, preaching, witnessing, praying, conferences, correspondences, missions, fund raisings, debates....... The list goes on.

"Get plugged in." The phrase use to sound like an invitation to something better than this world has to offer. I was naive. I use to understand my faith as something like a toaster. It can't build up the heat unless it's plugged into the church. But, since I'm using the analogy, the church is experiencing rolling brown outs. And, therefore, I've learned that the strength of my faith is not contingent on my involvement with churches.

No doubt someone will want to quote "Do not forsake the assembly". That's ok. It was in faith that I stopped attending church. I needed to find out for myself that God was far bigger than I ever thought. All the familiar Christian rhetoric was sounding like a putrid stagnant lake filled with leaches. I'm finding that He doesn't need help in nourishing my spirit, or putting me in exactly the right place at the right time for His sake. My needs are met without striving. I don't need to "Get plugged in" ever again.

When I say that this seems like a good time to repent, I literally mean this seems like a good time to change my mind regarding attending a church. Thank you for sharing some of your story. I can't help but be curious..... during that time you said you slipped back into the world, were you oblivious of God? I'm not asking if you would have done some things differently. But, was he present, regardless of the guilt?

Love to hear your reactions.

Kevin

Reynolds357
May 20th 2008, 05:09 PM
Hi, Hal.

"Get plugged in". Thats the last phrase I remember hearing when I asked the Lord why I was working so hard in the Church. For 20 years I had been involved. Many, many Churches, para-church organizations, ministries, discipling, bible studies, scripture memory, preaching, witnessing, praying, conferences, correspondences, missions, fund raisings, debates....... The list goes on.

"Get plugged in." The phrase use to sound like an invitation to something better than this world has to offer. I was naive. I use to understand my faith as something like a toaster. It can't build up the heat unless it's plugged into the church. But, since I'm using the analogy, the church is experiencing rolling brown outs. And, therefore, I've learned that the strength of my faith is not contingent on my involvement with churches.

No doubt someone will want to quote "Do not forsake the assembly". That's ok. It was in faith that I stopped attending church. I needed to find out for myself that God was far bigger than I ever thought. All the familiar Christian rhetoric was sounding like a putrid stagnant lake filled with leaches. I'm finding that He doesn't need help in nourishing my spirit, or putting me in exactly the right place at the right time for His sake. My needs are met without striving. I don't need to "Get plugged in" ever again.

When I say that this seems like a good time to repent, I literally mean this seems like a good time to change my mind regarding attending a church. Thank you for sharing some of your story. I can't help but be curious..... during that time you said you slipped back into the world, were you oblivious of God? I'm not asking if you would have done some things differently. But, was he present, regardless of the guilt?

Love to hear your reactions.

Kevin

God was always present and calling me home. Actually, the worse my behavior became, the louder his call to come home became.
I am not thrilled about the traditional church either. I prefer mission Churches or home Churches. I assemble myself together with believers, worship God and study His word. However, I am not thrilled about "Hanging out under the steeple," as an evangelist I know refers to traditional church attendance. I think that Christ intended His Church to be missions minded. The traditional church as a whole is inward minded, not missions minded. They foucus on buildings, carpet, stained glass, and many other items that do nothing to carry the gospel into a lost and dying world. I am a very firm believer in tithes and offerings, but I rarely give either to the traditional church. I give to "extensions of the Church." I give to Christian missions and Christian relief. I want to see souls won and the hurting ministered to. I do not want to see stained glass and new carpet. I believe that the Church must look out to reach the lost. The must abandon their inward thinking mindset. The local church must become missions minded again. The fire within the heart of the Church must once again burn to reach the lost.

Theophilus
May 20th 2008, 05:35 PM
A cowboy walks into a bar and orders a steak with his whiskey. After he finishes his meal, he pulls his gun and fires once in the air then goes away. He eats, shoots, and leaves.

A panda's diet is very delicate. In fact, it will only eat a few things. It eats shoots and leaves. (Taken from a book I read with the same name in bold)

I'm reading this thread and thinking that a TON of intellectual energy is being pored into this debate. It's a lot of fun to listen in. Kind of like watching football with all the surprise moves and end runs and such. I can't help but wonder maybe you're all correct?

Punctuation is only a recent phenomenon. The early readers of the scriptures didn't have the 'benefit' of a clearly placed comma, following the rules of grammar we have today. A passage can mean very different things (Duhh) and still be correct.

...but the context of each of your stories makes the meaning of the bold text clear. The same should hold true for interpreting passages of Scripture, or at least help in determining the meaning of a passage. :)

Scubadude
May 20th 2008, 08:41 PM
...but the context of each of your stories makes the meaning of the bold text clear. The same should hold true for interpreting passages of Scripture, or at least help in determining the meaning of a passage. :)

I agree. The context makes the meaning of each story clearer. But, the punctuation gives meaning to the context. If you take away the commas from the cowboy story, the meaning of that context is lost (or, at least confused). He just ate a steak and shot his gun, he doesn't eat shoots and leaves. That would be ridiculous, or at least humorous.

My point (I think) is that the original readers of the scriptures had to decide what that context was for themselves. I don't imagine that every person in the Corinthian church (the ancient Las Vagas) heard the words, "Brothers, think of what you were when you were called." the same way. They became the 'context' for understanding the context of the letter.

How is it that the many brothers and sister on this forum can have such diverse opinions on the same subject? We each think of what we were when we were called, we bring our hearts to the text, and from that point of view, we interpret. We add our own commas. I am convinced that the way someone interprets the scriptures says more about that person than it does about God. This is as it should be. The word of God exposes our hearts to one another. By His word, we have hope for community.

In my humble opinion, a better question than "What is the best interpretation?", is, "What does the way you interpret the scriptures say about you?" I think if we moved this direction in more churches, less people would feel invisible in a crowd, less lonely. We would be known by our love, not our high powered theology, gifts to the pore, olympic feats of ministry, beautiful buildings........blah, blah, blah.

Thanks for your comment.


:pp (aren't these things cute!?)

Cobalt1959
May 21st 2008, 01:45 AM
I agree. The context makes the meaning of each story clearer. But, the punctuation gives meaning to the context. If you take away the commas from the cowboy story, the meaning of that context is lost (or, at least confused). He just ate a steak and shot his gun, he doesn't eat shoots and leaves. That would be ridiculous, or at least humorous.

My point (I think) is that the original readers of the scriptures had to decide what that context was for themselves. I don't imagine that every person in the Corinthian church (the ancient Las Vagas) heard the words, "Brothers, think of what you were when you were called." the same way. They became the 'context' for understanding the context of the letter.

How is it that the many brothers and sister on this forum can have such diverse opinions on the same subject? We each think of what we were when we were called, we bring our hearts to the text, and from that point of view, we interpret. We add our own commas. I am convinced that the way someone interprets the scriptures says more about that person than it does about God. This is as it should be. The word of God exposes our hearts to one another. By His word, we have hope for community.

In my humble opinion, a better question than "What is the best interpretation?", is, "What does the way you interpret the scriptures say about you?" I think if we moved this direction in more churches, less people would feel invisible in a crowd, less lonely. We would be known by our love, not our high powered theology, gifts to the pore, olympic feats of ministry, beautiful buildings........blah, blah, blah.

Thanks for your comment.


:pp (aren't these things cute!?)

To build a bit more on what Reynolds357 said. My story pretty much parallels his. I was saved at the age of 10, but by the age of 22 or so, I pretty much stopped dedicating my life to the Lord, and I stayed that way, for the most part until my wife got me back into church in 2002. That led me to re-dedicate myself to Him all over again. He certainly never left me, but I tried very hard to leave Him. Our church is not big, and it is not fancy, but we sincerely love the Lord and attempt to serve Him in any way we can.

What I am trying to say in a round-about way is this: In my own opinion, whether a home group, an informal gathering of believers in a store front, or a formal organized church, there is somewhere you belong. Not that whatever place or group it is cannot get along without you, but where ever it is that you belong, they are a bit poorer for not having you there, and you are a bit poorer for not being there. Just my own opinion.

Blessings,
Eddie. . .

Cobalt1959
May 21st 2008, 02:44 AM
Paul said he became all things in order to win some to Christ. The point? You might have people in that congregation that won't receive anything you say unless it is preached from the KJV.

And conversely, why would the people in the congregation think that they could only get something out of the KJV and no other translation? That can go both ways. The Word of God is the Word of God whether it is the KJV or the ESV, and if someone is being annointed, they are going to be preaching God's word out of an NASB or a RSV, and it is for someone. The Word never returns empty. I would speak out of a KJV out of respect to the Pastor and the church, but If you truly have a message, God is going to allow it to be delivered no matter what translation you are working from. :saint:

I love the Bible way too much to limit myself to one translation. My personal favorites are the KJV, NASB, ESV, and yes. . . the NIV. :rofl:

Scubadude
May 21st 2008, 06:23 PM
I believe that the Church must look out to reach the lost. They must abandon their inward thinking mindset. The local church must become missions minded again. The fire within the heart of the Church must once again burn to reach the lost.

Preeeeeech it, brother! How do you get there, though? And, where did that fire go? I have a suspicion that the fire is still present, but it's moved with the rest of society. It's "New wine in new wine skins". The Spirit is moving in some unexpected directions, and many churches are still trying to force something new into something old (Repackaging Christ? Maybe something alive into something dead?). I've run into so many people who have decided to stop going to church, I feel pretty comfortable making such a bold clame; People are not leaving the church because they are losing their faith. They are leaving in order to preserve their faith.

The KJV only'ests strike me as an example of what I'm saying. My uncle will not discuss scripture with me unless I quote in KJV. At first it was really annoying, now I just think it's kind of cute and unnecessary. The fact that he is a brilliant man with a heart the size if Texas could have been missed by many people because he requires others to learn his archaic language before he will really talk with you. That's what I see the church is doing with the rest of the world.

I don't know. I have my own fears that lead me to do some unnecessary things (just ask my wife). As the Lord changes my mind about them, grants me repentance, I find myself relaxing more inside and worshiping more freely. The Lord is doing something new, so infinitely creative that no one can say they they saw it coming. I can understand peoples fears (being a people myself), fear is kind of painful and no one likes to hurt. I just wonder if any KJV only'ers realize that people who aren't, find their insistence unnecessary?

Well, I hope I'm not preaching too much. This is one of those hot button subjects for me.

In Christ,
Kevin

Scubadude
May 21st 2008, 06:31 PM
He certainly never left me, but I tried very hard to leave Him.

Hey, Eddie!

Sorry for the short reply. Spent all my time responding to Hal's post.

Just wanted to say that you made me think how wonderful it is to be stuck with God. It's true, after a while, you just can't get rid of him. Praise God!

Kevin

Reynolds357
May 21st 2008, 06:33 PM
Preeeeeech it, brother! How do you get there, though? And, where did that fire go? I have a suspicion that the fire is still present, but it's moved with the rest of society. It's "New wine in new wine skins". The Spirit is moving in some unexpected directions, and many churches are still trying to force something new into something old (Repackaging Christ? Maybe something alive into something dead?). I've run into so many people who have decided to stop going to church, I feel pretty comfortable making such a bold clame; People are not leaving the church because they are losing their faith. They are leaving in order to preserve their faith.

The KJV only'ests strike me as an example of what I'm saying. My uncle will not discuss scripture with me unless I quote in KJV. At first it was really annoying, now I just think it's kind of cute and unnecessary. The fact that he is a brilliant man with a heart the size if Texas could have been missed by many people because he requires others to learn his archaic language before he will really talk with you. That's what I see the church is doing with the rest of the world.

I don't know. I have my own fears that lead me to do some unnecessary things (just ask my wife). As the Lord changes my mind about them, grants me repentance, I find myself relaxing more inside and worshiping more freely. The Lord is doing something new, so infinitely creative that no one can say they they saw it coming. I can understand peoples fears (being a people myself), fear is kind of painful and no one likes to hurt. I just wonder if any KJV only'ers realize that people who aren't, find their insistence unnecessary?

Well, I hope I'm not preaching too much. This is one of those hot button subjects for me.

In Christ,
Kevin

There is an old man that was on the deacon board when we decided to put in a new sound system. About half of the Church wanted it and about 25% of the church was against it, and the others did not care one way or the other. Some of the opponents fussed and complained that we did not need all that "racket" in the service. The fundamental issue was not the sound system as much as it was that the sound system was going to be used to play praise and worship music, where up until that time the only instruments used were the piano and organ. One man fussed and complained about the "sound system and all that racket that was going to be played on it was of the Devil." The old deacon asked him "do you like the organ?" He was taken back and eventually said yes he did like the organ. The old deacon said "Thats funny because when we bought it 45 years ago your father fussed about it and said it was an instrument of the devil." Tradition has trumped common sense in many churches. Do what the Bible says do, not what tradition dictates. Tradition is the major barrier to growth in the Church and KJV only is simply an example of Tradition.

Scubadude
May 23rd 2008, 12:02 AM
What I am trying to say in a round-about way is this: In my own opinion, whether a home group, an informal gathering of believers in a store front, or a formal organized church, there is somewhere you belong. Not that whatever place or group it is cannot get along without you, but where ever it is that you belong, they are a bit poorer for not having you there, and you are a bit poorer for not being there. Just my own opinion.

Blessings,
Eddie. . .

What you said made me feel very sad. I think what I was hoping for in church was to feel as though my presence mattered. If I'm not around, life will go on. I understand that. If someone were to ask me, "Would your church feel poorer, and would you feel poorer if you weren't around?", my answer would be, "I think they would notice. And I would have the chance to relax on Sunday." That breaks my heart.

I know several men who pastor churches or are worship leaders. At some point, all of them have been given advice from other pastors and elders; Do not get personally involved with your parishioners. There is a kind of wisdom to that advice. I don't think most church attenders want to think that their pastor struggles with the same sins they do. He is not allowed to struggle openly with life. At least not so openly that the majority of people he sees every week will suspect he is (I'm talking about the big issues. Sexual addictions, depression, homosexual feelings, spouse abuse, adultery). Most would loose their jobs for admitting so. In fact, I think the reason I've been able to make some of these friends is because I informed them that I will never attend their church. Ironic, and sad.

My point is, churches expect the wrong thing from their pastors, and therefore from each other, and therefore from the Lord. I'm starting to get that 'I'm being too long winded' feeling. Thank you for saying that there is somewhere I belong. I'll take words of hope when ever I can (and prayer too, btw). My wife and I just started attending a very small Lutheran church. It seems fitting to let my mind be guided by the passage where Jesus says to Peter, "If you don't let me do this thing for you, how can you have any part of me?" Not only do I want to serve, I want to know that my service will build some strong friendships. I think serving and being served should be deeply humbling.

Aloha,
Kevin

Scubadude
May 23rd 2008, 02:11 AM
There is an old man that was on the deacon board when we decided to put in a new sound system. About half of the Church wanted it and about 25% of the church was against it, and the others did not care one way or the other. Some of the opponents fussed and complained that we did not need all that "racket" in the service. The fundamental issue was not the sound system as much as it was that the sound system was going to be used to play praise and worship music, where up until that time the only instruments used were the piano and organ. One man fussed and complained about the "sound system and all that racket that was going to be played on it was of the Devil." The old deacon asked him "do you like the organ?" He was taken back and eventually said yes he did like the organ. The old deacon said "Thats funny because when we bought it 45 years ago your father fussed about it and said it was an instrument of the devil." Tradition has trumped common sense in many churches. Do what the Bible says do, not what tradition dictates. Tradition is the major barrier to growth in the Church and KJV only is simply an example of Tradition.


"Evangelicals are responsible citizens whom most people appreciate as neighbors but don't want to spend much time with." Philip Yancey

:D:o

JordanW
Jun 5th 2008, 01:09 AM
I saw this video on YouTube and it totally changed my perspective, this guy talks about stuff that I did not know about, at all! http://youtube.com/watch?v=gGWQx5z6-Xs This is not a KJV-Onlyist video.