PDA

View Full Version : More thoughts on "before 1611" and why the KJB is God's pure words



brandplucked
Nov 16th 2008, 04:02 PM
It is supremely important to have faith in God, both for our salvation and for believing that He has kept and preserved His words throughout every generation as He promised to do. If you cannot believe God has kept His promise to preserve His words, then how can you believe He will keep His promise to preserve your soul?

Ask any modern version promoter if he believes the originals were given by inspiration of God. He will enthusiastically respond in the affirmative. Yes, they were inspired. Then ask him how he knows this to be true. He has never seen them because they don't exist. He believes it by faith. In the same way we too have faith that God both inspired His original words and that He has preserved them through history and today they are found in the King James Bible.

God fulfills His purposes in the fulness of time. He is sovereign in history and His timetable is not the same as mans. In Galatians 4:4 we read: “But when the FULNESS OF THE TIME WAS COME, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”

One might well question why some 2000 years ago was the “fulness of time” to send forth the prophesied Saviour when men had been perishing in their sins for hundreds of years previously. Yet God does all things according to His timetable in the fulness of time.

God sent the Lord Jesus Christ at the perfect time in history. When He completed what He came to do, He said, "it is finished" and then the work was complete. What happened through that work still lives on today.

Just as God did with the INCARNATE Word, so He has done with His WRITTEN Word. God’s translation work for the English Bible was completed with the King James Bible. It happened in the fulness of time.

The King James Bible came at the perfect time in history, when English was at the perfect stage of development and when the hearts of the people were prepared to accept it. The Reformation and the Puritan movement were in full swing and the nations were soon to witness the greatest, world wide missionary outreach in history.

I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude.

Another "happy coincidence" about the King James Bible is that it is the only one ever sanctioned by a ruling king and his name was James, the English equivalent of the Hebrew Jacob. "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Ecclesiastes 8:4.

In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. He used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It was even taken to space by American astronauts and read from there.

God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way. It is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of believers to be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God.

When the Word incarnate came to this earth, He did not come fully grown. Jesus Christ went through stages of development until He reached maturity as a man.

Even though Christ was God incarnate and sinless in nature, yet He still had to LEARN and GROW and BE MADE PERFECT in the sense of being made complete and mature.

"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." Luke 2:52

"Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; " Hebrews 5:8-9.

And so too it was with the Scriptures in the English language, which is the closest thing to a universal language in today’s modern world and where the pure words of God exist. Psalms 12:6-7 say: “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them for ever.”

I believe these seven progressive purifications of God’s words in the English language are to be found in the following major Biblical works that finally resulted in The Bible of the English speaking people: Wycliffe's hand copied Bible of 1395, Tyndale's New Testament of 1525, the first complete and printed Coverdale's Bible of 1535 , the Great Bible of 1539 , the Geneva Bible of 1560 and the Bishops’ Bible of 1568 . These were the 6 previous purification stages until the Bible in English was fully perfected in what was originally called simply The Holy Bible and in more modern times has became known as the Authorized Version, the King James Version or the King James Holy Bible.

These previous English Bible contained all the major disputed verses (35 to 45 entire verses in the New Testament alone) that are omitted by so many of the modern versions that follow very different underlying Greek texts and often reject the inspired Hebrew readings as well. These include such versions as the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NET and Holman Standard.

Among the verses omitted or called into question by these modern Bible of the Month Club contradictory versions which, by the way, NOBODY believes are the inerrant words of God, not even the people who put them out or use them, are: Matthew 12:47; 17:21; 18:11; 21:24; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; 16:9 through 20; Luke 9:55-56; 23:19; John 5:4; 8:1 through 11; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:6-8; 28:29, Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7.

The indebtedness of the King James Bible translators to their predecessors is recognized most clearly in the Preface to the reader where they state in no uncertain terms: “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought, from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; … but TO MAKE A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, NOT JUSTLY TO BE EXCEPTED AGAINST—that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.”

The King James Translators also wrote: "Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are the thoughts to be the wiser: so if we build upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to make better which they left so good...if they were alive would thank us...the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished."

Where was the word of God before A.D. 1611? In the same place it was before 1611 B.C.

In Matthew 4:4, Jesus says, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Where was “Every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” when Jesus said that? There was no New Testament written. The 66 book canon was far from complete when Jesus spoke these words.

Every word that they needed to live by was preserved for those living at that time. The Old Testament Scriptures in the Hebrew. But every word of God had NOT YET proceeded from the mouth of God.

Was the word of God preserved when Jesus said that? Absolutely! The word of God has always been preserved. It has not always been complete. There is a difference between "preservation" and "completion."

And so it was with the word of God in English before A.D. 1611. It was preserved; it just wasn't complete in English yet. It had to be made perfect just as the Word incarnate had to be made perfect.

"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." Hebrews 5:8.

And in the fullness of time, the English Bible was made perfect in The Holy Bible, also known as the King James Version.

All of grace, believing The Book,

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/

Will Kinney

tgallison
Nov 16th 2008, 07:14 PM
It is supremely important to have faith in God, both for our salvation and for believing that He has kept and preserved His words throughout every generation as He promised to do. If you cannot believe God has kept His promise to preserve His words, then how can you believe He will keep His promise to preserve your soul?

Ask any modern version promoter if he believes the originals were given by inspiration of God. He will enthusiastically respond in the affirmative. Yes, they were inspired. Then ask him how he knows this to be true. He has never seen them because they don't exist. He believes it by faith. In the same way we too have faith that God both inspired His original words and that He has preserved them through history and today they are found in the King James Bible.

God fulfills His purposes in the fulness of time. He is sovereign in history and His timetable is not the same as mans. In Galatians 4:4 we read: “But when the FULNESS OF THE TIME WAS COME, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”

One might well question why some 2000 years ago was the “fulness of time” to send forth the prophesied Saviour when men had been perishing in their sins for hundreds of years previously. Yet God does all things according to His timetable in the fulness of time.

God sent the Lord Jesus Christ at the perfect time in history. When He completed what He came to do, He said, "it is finished" and then the work was complete. What happened through that work still lives on today.

Just as God did with the INCARNATE Word, so He has done with His WRITTEN Word. God’s translation work for the English Bible was completed with the King James Bible. It happened in the fulness of time.

The King James Bible came at the perfect time in history, when English was at the perfect stage of development and when the hearts of the people were prepared to accept it. The Reformation and the Puritan movement were in full swing and the nations were soon to witness the greatest, world wide missionary outreach in history.

I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude.

Another "happy coincidence" about the King James Bible is that it is the only one ever sanctioned by a ruling king and his name was James, the English equivalent of the Hebrew Jacob. "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Ecclesiastes 8:4.

In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. He used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It was even taken to space by American astronauts and read from there.

God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way. It is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of believers to be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God.

When the Word incarnate came to this earth, He did not come fully grown. Jesus Christ went through stages of development until He reached maturity as a man.

Even though Christ was God incarnate and sinless in nature, yet He still had to LEARN and GROW and BE MADE PERFECT in the sense of being made complete and mature.

"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." Luke 2:52

"Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; " Hebrews 5:8-9.

And so too it was with the Scriptures in the English language, which is the closest thing to a universal language in today’s modern world and where the pure words of God exist. Psalms 12:6-7 say: “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them for ever.”

I believe these seven progressive purifications of God’s words in the English language are to be found in the following major Biblical works that finally resulted in The Bible of the English speaking people: Wycliffe's hand copied Bible of 1395, Tyndale's New Testament of 1525, the first complete and printed Coverdale's Bible of 1535 , the Great Bible of 1539 , the Geneva Bible of 1560 and the Bishops’ Bible of 1568 . These were the 6 previous purification stages until the Bible in English was fully perfected in what was originally called simply The Holy Bible and in more modern times has became known as the Authorized Version, the King James Version or the King James Holy Bible.

These previous English Bible contained all the major disputed verses (35 to 45 entire verses in the New Testament alone) that are omitted by so many of the modern versions that follow very different underlying Greek texts and often reject the inspired Hebrew readings as well. These include such versions as the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NET and Holman Standard.

Among the verses omitted or called into question by these modern Bible of the Month Club contradictory versions which, by the way, NOBODY believes are the inerrant words of God, not even the people who put them out or use them, are: Matthew 12:47; 17:21; 18:11; 21:24; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; 16:9 through 20; Luke 9:55-56; 23:19; John 5:4; 8:1 through 11; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:6-8; 28:29, Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7.

The indebtedness of the King James Bible translators to their predecessors is recognized most clearly in the Preface to the reader where they state in no uncertain terms: “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought, from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; … but TO MAKE A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, NOT JUSTLY TO BE EXCEPTED AGAINST—that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.”

The King James Translators also wrote: "Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are the thoughts to be the wiser: so if we build upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to make better which they left so good...if they were alive would thank us...the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished."

Where was the word of God before A.D. 1611? In the same place it was before 1611 B.C.

In Matthew 4:4, Jesus says, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Where was “Every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” when Jesus said that? There was no New Testament written. The 66 book canon was far from complete when Jesus spoke these words.

Every word that they needed to live by was preserved for those living at that time. The Old Testament Scriptures in the Hebrew. But every word of God had NOT YET proceeded from the mouth of God.

Was the word of God preserved when Jesus said that? Absolutely! The word of God has always been preserved. It has not always been complete. There is a difference between "preservation" and "completion."

And so it was with the word of God in English before A.D. 1611. It was preserved; it just wasn't complete in English yet. It had to be made perfect just as the Word incarnate had to be made perfect.

"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." Hebrews 5:8.

And in the fullness of time, the English Bible was made perfect in The Holy Bible, also known as the King James Version.

All of grace, believing The Book,

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/

Will Kinney

Thank you Will Kinney and Ditto.

Butch5
Nov 16th 2008, 08:42 PM
Didn't you get tired of this battle on the other forum?

Literalist-Luke
Nov 17th 2008, 04:48 AM
It is supremely important to have faith in God, both for our salvation and for believing that He has kept and preserved His words throughout every generation as He promised to do. If you cannot believe God has kept His promise to preserve His words, then how can you believe He will keep His promise to preserve your soul? So far so good. :yes:
Ask any modern version promoter if he believes the originals were given by inspiration of God. He will enthusiastically respond in the affirmative. Yes, they were inspired. Then ask him how he knows this to be true. He has never seen them because they don't exist. He believes it by faith. In the same way we too have faith that God both inspired His original words and that He has preserved them through history and today they are found in the King James Bible. The difference is that the Bible’s claim to infallibility was penned over 1500 years before the KJV was issued, so the KJV cannot claim that assertion for itself.
God fulfills His purposes in the fulness of time. He is sovereign in history and His timetable is not the same as mans. In Galatians 4:4 we read: “But when the FULNESS OF THE TIME WAS COME, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”

One might well question why some 2000 years ago was the “fulness of time” to send forth the prophesied Saviour when men had been perishing in their sins for hundreds of years previously. Yet God does all things according to His timetable in the fulness of time.

God sent the Lord Jesus Christ at the perfect time in history. When He completed what He came to do, He said, "it is finished" and then the work was complete. What happened through that work still lives on today. I can go along with this.
Just as God did with the INCARNATE Word, so He has done with His WRITTEN Word. Right – the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Word.
God’s translation work for the English Bible was completed with the King James Bible. It happened in the fulness of time. That is an opinion that you are entitled to hold, but it is nothing more – an opinion.
The King James Bible came at the perfect time in history, when English was at the perfect stage of development and when the hearts of the people were prepared to accept it. I say that English is perfectly developed today. :yes:
The Reformation and the Puritan movement were in full swing and the nations were soon to witness the greatest, world wide missionary outreach in history.Billy Graham and Reinhard Bonche would disagree with you on that, and so would I. Personally, if a Puritan came to my house to get me to visit their church, I’d tell them to get lost.
I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude. You’re right, He is in absolutely control – and that’s why the NIV/TNIV translation came at just the right time, because so many people were finding the KJV Bible virtually unreadable.
Another "happy coincidence" about the King James Bible is that it is the only one ever sanctioned by a ruling king and his name was James, the English equivalent of the Hebrew Jacob. "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Ecclesiastes 8:4. Considering that the Roman Catholic Church was sanctioned by “King” Caesar Constantine, I’d be hesitant to call a government-sanctioned religion a “good” thing.
In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. He used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It was even taken to space by American astronauts and read from there.And a fine thing it was, too. How blessed we are today to have a translation in the NIV/TNIV that speaks to the masses just as effectively as the KJV did when it came out.
God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way.Um, He providentially used the NIV in my life.
It is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of believers to be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God. I would be very hesitant to use “majority rules” as the basis for your claim, considering that the same Bible tells us that “marjority rules” will have everybody bowing to the Antichrist and taking his mark at the end.
When the Word incarnate came to this earth, He did not come fully grown. Jesus Christ went through stages of development until He reached maturity as a man.

Even though Christ was God incarnate and sinless in nature, yet He still had to LEARN and GROW and BE MADE PERFECT in the sense of being made complete and mature.

"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." Luke 2:52

"Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; " Hebrews 5:8-9.

And so too it was with the Scriptures in the English language, which is the closest thing to a universal language in today’s modern world and where the pure words of God exist. Psalms 12:6-7 say: “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them for ever.”And today, the English translation’s fullest development is in the NIV/TNIV version.
I believe these seven progressive purifications of God’s words in the English language are to be found in the following major Biblical works that finally resulted in The Bible of the English speaking people: Wycliffe's hand copied Bible of 1395, Tyndale's New Testament of 1525, the first complete and printed Coverdale's Bible of 1535 , the Great Bible of 1539 , the Geneva Bible of 1560 and the Bishops’ Bible of 1568 . These were the 6 previous purification stages until the Bible in English was fully perfected in what was originally called simply The Holy Bible and in more modern times has became known as the Authorized Version, the King James Version or the King James Holy Bible. You forgot the Matthews Bible of 1537 and the West Saxon Gospels. Oops, that makes nine, well so much for the Psalm 12:6-7 theory.
These previous English Bible contained all the major disputed verses (35 to 45 entire verses in the New Testament alone) that are omitted by so many of the modern versions that follow very different underlying Greek texts and often reject the inspired Hebrew readings as well. These include such versions as the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NET and Holman Standard.Yes, the modern versions have finally removed the added verses that were not intended by God to be in His Word.
Among the verses omitted or called into question by these modern Bible of the Month Club contradictory versions which, by the way, NOBODY believes are the inerrant words of God, not even the people who put them out or use them, are: Matthew 12:47; 17:21; 18:11; 21:24; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; 16:9 through 20; Luke 9:55-56; 23:19; John 5:4; 8:1 through 11; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:6-8; 28:29, Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7. At least we got closer to perfection by removing those extra verses.
The indebtedness of the King James Bible translators to their predecessors is recognized most clearly in the Preface to the reader where they state in no uncertain terms: “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought, from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; … but TO MAKE A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, NOT JUSTLY TO BE EXCEPTED AGAINST—that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.”

The King James Translators also wrote: "Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are the thoughts to be the wiser: so if we build upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to make better which they left so good...if they were alive would thank us...the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished." And the NIV/TNIV translators asserted similar beliefs and attitudes in their preface as well. :yes:
Where was the word of God before A.D. 1611? In the same place it was before 1611 B.C.

In Matthew 4:4, Jesus says, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Where was “Every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” when Jesus said that? There was no New Testament written. The 66 book canon was far from complete when Jesus spoke these words.

Every word that they needed to live by was preserved for those living at that time. The Old Testament Scriptures in the Hebrew. But every word of God had NOT YET proceeded from the mouth of God.

Was the word of God preserved when Jesus said that? Absolutely! The word of God has always been preserved. It has not always been complete. There is a difference between "preservation" and "completion."

And so it was with the word of God in English before A.D. 1611. It was preserved; it just wasn't complete in English yet. It had to be made perfect just as the Word incarnate had to be made perfect. So aren’t we fortunate that the NIV/TNIV translation has now finally completed what the KJV merely preserved for us?
"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." Hebrews 5:8.

And in the fullness of time, the English Bible was made perfect in The Holy Bible, also known as the King James Version.As I said, you may believe whatever you wish. I believe the sky is red and the grass if purple. Does that make it true?

Rufus_1611
Nov 17th 2008, 05:29 AM
One of the best OPs I've ever read on any forum!

holyrokker
Nov 17th 2008, 05:43 AM
Melyektől némelyek eltévelyedvén, hiábavaló beszédre hajlottak: Kik törvénytanítók akarván lenni, nem értik, sem a miket beszélnek, sem a miket erősítgetnek.

holyrokker
Nov 17th 2008, 05:44 AM
Sannlega, sannlega segi ég ţér: Enginn getur komist inn í Guđs ríki, nema hann fćđist af vatni og anda. Ţađ sem af holdinu fćđist, er hold, en ţađ sem af andanum fćđist, er andi. Undrast eigi, ađ ég segi viđ ţig: Yđur ber ađ fćđast ađ nýju. Vindurinn blćs ţar sem hann vill, og ţú heyrir ţyt hans. Samt veistu ekki, hvađan hann kemur né hvert hann fer. Svo er um ţann, sem af andanum er fćddur

holyrokker
Nov 17th 2008, 05:45 AM
저희 마음의 완악함을 근심하사 노하심으로 저희를 둘러 보시고 그 사람에게 이르시되 네 손을 내밀라 하시니 그가 내밀매 그 손이 회복되었더라

바리새인들이 나가서 곧 헤롯당과 함께 어떻게 하여 예수를 죽일꼬 의논하니라
예수께서 제자들과 함께 바다로 물러가시니 갈릴리에서 큰 무리가 좇으며 유대와 예루살렘과 이두매와 요단강 건너편과 또 두로와 시돈 근처에서 허다한 무리가 그의 하신 큰 일을 듣고 나아오는지라

holyrokker
Nov 17th 2008, 05:47 AM
Na ka tirotiro riri ia ki a ratou, he pouri hoki mo te pakeke o o ratou ngakau, ka mea ki taua tangata, Totoro tou ringa. A, ko te toronga o tona ringa, kua ora.

Na ka haere atu nga Parihi, ka runanga tahi me nga Heroriana mona, ki te pehea e whakangaromia ai ia.
Na ka maunu atu a Ihu ratou ko ana akonga ki te moana; he nui hoki te tangata i aru i a ia i Kariri, i Huria, I Hiruharama, i Irumia, i tawahi hoki o Horano; me te hunga hoki e tata ana ki Taira, ki Hairona, nui atu te huihui; i to ratou rongonga i nga mea i mea ai ia, haere ana ki a ia.

holyrokker
Nov 17th 2008, 05:49 AM
Тогда Иисус, обведя их гневным взглядом и скорбя о черствости их сердец, сказал калеке: - Протяни руку! - Тот протянул, и его рука стала совершенно здоровой.
Выйдя из синагоги, фарисеи немедленно начали совещаться со сторонниками Ирода о том, как им разделаться с Иисусом.

holyrokker
Nov 17th 2008, 05:50 AM
Atëherë ai, si i shikoi rreth e qark me zemërim, i hidhëruar për ngurtësinë e zemrës së tyre, i tha atij njeriu: ''Shtrije dorën tënde!''. Ai e shtriu, dhe dora e tij u shëndosh përsëri si tjetra. Dhe farisenjtë dolën jashtë e menjëherë bënin këshill bashkë me herodianët kundër tij, se si ta vrasin.

holyrokker
Nov 17th 2008, 05:51 AM
Yesu akawatazama kwa hasira, akahuzunishwa na ugumu wa mioyo yao. Akamwambia yule mtu, ``Nyoosha mkono wako.'' Akauny oosha, nao ukapona kabisa! Kisha Mafarisayo wakatoka nje, wakaenda kushauriana na kundi la wafuasi wa Herode mbinu za kum wua Yesu.

holyrokker
Nov 17th 2008, 05:52 AM
Why am I posting in these various languages? To emphasize the utter absurdity of your doctrine!

holyrokker
Nov 17th 2008, 05:54 AM
Bấy giờ, Ngŕi lấy mắt liếc họ, vừa giận vừa buồn vě lňng họ cứng cỏi, rồi phán cůng người nam rằng: hăy giơ tay ra. Người giơ ra, thě tay được lŕnh. Các người Pha-ri-si đi ra, tức thě bŕn luận với phe Hę-rốt nghịch cůng Ngŕi, đặng giết Ngŕi đi.

Rufus_1611
Nov 17th 2008, 05:54 AM
La gente che spam i messageboards con testo straniero deve essere fuori dal loro attuatore.

holyrokker
Nov 17th 2008, 06:01 AM
The world's population is over 6,500,000,000

About 350,000,000 speak English as a native language.

That leaves 6,150,000,000 people (95% of the world) who cannot read and understand English. Of the remaing 5% who speak English, I'd estimate that maybe 1% can read and understand the English of 1611.

holyrokker
Nov 17th 2008, 06:09 AM
La gente che spam i messageboards con testo straniero deve essere fuori dal loro attuatore.
- No - only those who insist the KJV is the "perfect" Bible.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 17th 2008, 06:15 AM
Why am I posting in these various languages? To emphasize the utter absurdity of your doctrine!What is it that you're saying in these different languages? http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/confused.gif

Literalist-Luke
Nov 17th 2008, 06:22 AM
Oh, never mind, it looks like you're quoting Mark 3:5-6 -

He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

Did I get it right? :D (The TNIV version, that is.)

holyrokker
Nov 17th 2008, 06:44 AM
LOL - wrong Gospel account.

See how absurd it is to say that the KJV is "perfect" when it's in a language that is no longer recognized by more than 99% of the world's population?

Rufus_1611
Nov 17th 2008, 06:52 AM
The world's population is over 6,500,000,000

About 350,000,000 speak English as a native language.

That leaves 6,150,000,000 people (95% of the world) who cannot read and understand English. Of the remaing 5% who speak English, I'd estimate that maybe 1% can read and understand the English of 1611.


"Thus, if you add the secondary speaker populations to the primary speaker populations, you get the following (and I believe more accurate) list: (number of speakers in parentheses)


Mandarin Chinese (1.12 billion)
English (480 million)
Spanish (320 million)
Russian (285 million)
French (265 million)
Hindi/Urdu (250 million)
Arabic (221 million)
Portuguese (188 million)
Bengali (185 million)
Japanese (133 million)
German (109 million)
After weighing six factors (number of primary speakers, number of secondary speakers, number and population of countries where used, number of major fields using the language internationally, economic power of countries using the languages, and socio-literary prestige), Weber compiled the following list of the world's ten most influential languages:

(number of points given in parentheses)

English (37)
French (23)
Spanish (20)
Russian (16)
Arabic (14)
Chinese (13)
German (12)
Japanese (10)
Portuguese (10)
Hindi/Urdu (9)
(Source: http://www2.ignatius.edu/faculty/turner/languages.htm (http://www2.ignatius.edu/faculty/turner/languages.htm))

"The second column figures are often over-estimates, as by no means everyone in the countries where a second language is recognized (e.g. India) will be fluent in it. The figures are of some interest as indicators of the way languages are moving.

Official Language Populations
1. English
2. Chinese
3. Hindi
...
(Source: http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/COMMUNICATIONS/TopLanguages.html)

Internet World Users by Language
1. English
2. Chinese
3. Spanish

(Source: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm)

"There are more than 6,900 languages used around the world today, ranging in size from those with hundreds of millions of speakers to those with only one or two. Language experts now estimate that as many as half of the existing languages are endangered, and by the year 2050 they will be extinct. The major reason for this language loss is that communities are switching to larger politically and economically more powerful languages, like English, Spanish, Hindi or Swahili." (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/aug/27/endangered.languages)

"An international organization must have effective ways to overcome language barriers to avoid becoming a Tower of Babel. Since almost every country in the world is represented at the United Nations, it is not an exaggeration to say that the United Nation is a microcosm of the world. The Organization uses six official languages in its intergovernmental meetings and documents, Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish; the Secretariat uses two working languages, English and French." (Source: http://www.un.org/Depts/DGACM/faq_languages.htm)

I could not find these languages in the top 10 or 20 of any list but, as best I can tell, Hebrew is spoken by around 5 million people and Greek by about 12 million.

RabbiKnife
Nov 17th 2008, 02:29 PM
Holyrokker, if you insist on speaking in tongues, give someone a chance to interpret!

:saint:

Literalist-Luke
Nov 17th 2008, 03:17 PM
Hebrew is spoken by around 5 million people and Greek by about 12 million.OK, so?

Rufus_1611
Nov 17th 2008, 03:49 PM
OK, so? So by your* doctrine you have 5 million people that have the perfectly, preserved Old Testament of God and 12 million that have the perfectly, preserved New Testament. I'm uncertain how many can speak both languages but there's at least less than 5 million that have a whole Bible perfectly preserved.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 17th 2008, 04:03 PM
So by your doctrine you have 5 million people that have the perfectly, preserved Old Testament of God and 12 million that have the perfectly, preserved New Testament. I'm uncertain how many can speak both languages but there's at least less than 5 million that have a whole Bible perfectly preserved.As I've stated in another thread, nobody has a Bible "perfectly preserved".

Levin
Nov 17th 2008, 05:50 PM
Hey brandplucked, a few thoughts on the issue by someone who has studied textual criticism (just a little bit)

Ask any modern version promoter if he believes the originals were given by inspiration of God. He will enthusiastically respond in the affirmative. Yes, they were inspired. Then ask him how he knows this to be true. He has never seen them because they don't exist. He believes it by faith.
This is not a true statement. I myself, a modern version promoter, do not believe that my translations are accurate to the originals primarily by faith. I believe by faith that the originals were inspired, but I use the cognitive and rational faculties given me by God to find out His truth. If all it takes is faith, then why don't I become Muslim or Mormon? It's because only the God of the Bible makes sense in this world and in my mind. Following this thought, I use my mind (and lean on the thoughts of others) to figure out which version, and which texts are most accurate to the originals. In 1611 we didn't have a ton of texts that we gave today, including P52, a text from around AD 125, which is possibly an original from John's gospel. If God has given us evidence of His word and how it was disseminated through history, then we need to use it.


Just as God did with the INCARNATE Word, so He has done with His WRITTEN Word. God’s translation work for the English Bible was completed with the King James Bible. It happened in the fulness of time.
How do you know this? How was there ever a fullness of time for English translations? The Bible does not ever talk about translations, or English itself. Your statements about this "fulness [sic] of time" are purely speculative, there is nothing inherently biblical about them. Christ himself came at the fullness of time, but God's word has always been translated into language so that people can understand it.


The King James Bible came at the perfect time in history, when English was at the perfect stage of development and when the hearts of the people were prepared to accept it. The Reformation and the Puritan movement were in full swing and the nations were soon to witness the greatest, world wide missionary outreach in history.
How do you know that "English was at the perfect stage of development"? What does that even mean? Is any language ever perfect? Where is your evidence, and how is this also not pure speculation? I agree that this translation did great work in its time; shouldn't that encourage us to do the same for our time?


Another "happy coincidence" about the King James Bible is that it is the only one ever sanctioned by a ruling king and his name was James, the English equivalent of the Hebrew Jacob. "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Ecclesiastes 8:4.
I think this is actually a point against this translation. The KJV was a politically motivated translation. While God can use this, the primary reason for the translation was that King James wanted more power in the churches. Not exactly the best circumstances for a new translation.


God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way. It is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of believers to be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God.
This is also not true. There have always been pluralities in translations. Also, before 1611, there were plenty of translations believed to be the infallible words of God. Even if this were true, the fact that most people believe it gives us no grounds to follow them.


And in the fullness of time, the English Bible was made perfect in The Holy Bible, also known as the King James Version.

Again, a statment with no proof. This is pure speculation.

Sorry, but I'm going to need more proof, especially from scripture, that there was ever going to be a time when translation would cease and the word of God stop needing to be interpreted for its culture and context.

Sincerely,
Levin

David Taylor
Nov 17th 2008, 08:12 PM
"Thus, if you add the secondary speaker populations to the primary speaker populations, you get the following (and I believe more accurate) list: (number of speakers in parentheses)


Mandarin Chinese (1.12 billion)
*********** (480 million)
Spanish (320 million)
Russian (285 million)
French (265 million)
Hindi/Urdu (250 million)
Arabic (221 million)
Portuguese (188 million)
Bengali (185 million)
Japanese (133 million)
German (109 million)



***********(37)
French (23)
Spanish (20)
Russian (16)
Arabic (14)
Chinese (13)
German (12)
Japanese (10)
Portuguese (10)
Hindi/Urdu (9)



So for the above listed languages that you specifically mentioned that are not English....for the people living in the world who only understand those languages; and do not understand English.....

What is the perfect Bible in "God's pure words" for them?

Will be going to Guatemala again later this year...
what is the perfect Bible in "God's pure words" that we should take to pass out?

Rufus_1611
Nov 17th 2008, 08:40 PM
So for the above listed languages that you specifically mentioned that are not English....for the people living in the world who only understand those languages; and do not understand English.....

What is the perfect Bible in "God's pure words" for them?

Will be going to Guatemala again later this year...
what is the perfect Bible in "God's pure words" that we should take to pass out? I don't know...I don't speak Spanish or Amerindian. What do you plan on passing out?

Rufus_1611
Nov 17th 2008, 08:42 PM
As I've stated in another thread, nobody has a Bible "perfectly preserved".

My bad...I retract the "your doctrine" thing.


"6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." - Psalms 12:6-7

How do you interpret the above passage?

JesusPhreak27
Nov 17th 2008, 08:52 PM
My bad...I retract the "your doctrine" thing.

"6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." - Psalms 12:6-7
How do you interpret the above passage?

That, just like Hebrews states, that the Bible is the same yesterday, today and tommorow.

What does this have to do with translations though?

Rufus_1611
Nov 17th 2008, 09:13 PM
That, just like Hebrews states, that the Bible is the same yesterday, today and tommorow.

What does this have to do with translations though?

I believe Literalist_Luke is contending that there is no perfectly, preserved word of God in any language. Psalms 12:6-7 suggests the doctrine of preservation, that the words of the Lord are pure words and they will be preserved from that generation for ever. The idea that there is no perfectly, preserved word of God today, seems contrary to my understanding of that passage and so I desired Literalist_Luke to explain his understanding of these words.

mikebr
Nov 17th 2008, 11:12 PM
What do you do about the problems in the KJV? Why are many different words translated as the same word in many cases?

I believe that the KJV has many errors. God's word is ONLY perfect in its original form.

JesusPhreak27
Nov 17th 2008, 11:36 PM
I believe Literalist_Luke is contending that there is no perfectly, preserved word of God in any language. Psalms 12:6-7 suggests the doctrine of preservation, that the words of the Lord are pure words and they will be preserved from that generation for ever. The idea that there is no perfectly, preserved word of God today, seems contrary to my understanding of that passage and so I desired Literalist_Luke to explain his understanding of these words.

He is ABSOLUTELY right then!

Each translation (including the KJV) is translated by man and since none of us are perfect there are bound to be mistakes.

The ONLY TRULY "perfect" translations are the original manuscripts.

Even those may or may not be totally perfect though as much of what is in the Bible we read today was passed on by a mouth to mouth process over the course of at least a thousand years.

Is it not acceptable to you to agree that each translation is right for a certain part of God's earthly family and that we dont all HAVE to read from the same exact version?

Isnt it fair to say that God is big enough and awesome enough to allow us to have different learning ways and that knowing this He allows us to read His word in different translations?

Literalist-Luke
Nov 18th 2008, 02:52 AM
I believe Literalist_Luke is contending that there is no perfectly, preserved word of God in any language. Psalms 12:6-7 suggests the doctrine of preservation, that the words of the Lord are pure words and they will be preserved from that generation for ever. The idea that there is no perfectly, preserved word of God today, seems contrary to my understanding of that passage and so I desired Literalist_Luke to explain his understanding of these words.What Psalm 12:6-7 is saying is that the important points are still intact. The message He needs us to get is still there. It's very simple.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 18th 2008, 02:59 AM
Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is [I]Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

2 Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.



Ezekiel 39:2 should read "And have turned thee back, and enticed thee, And caused thee to come up from the sides of the north, And brought thee in against mountains of Israel". The KJV translator mistook the Hebrew word "shashah" for "shawshaw", which alters the meaning of the text and adds the idea that a sixth of the invading armies will survive, when in fact, none of them will survive.


Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

1 Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, 2 Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

1 Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

2 Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

1 Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

1 Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

1 John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.
Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."


And none of this includes various passages that appear to have been added to the oldest, most reliable original texts by the texts used by the King James Translation, necessitating the "cleaning up" of the Bible by modern versions.

Praise the Lord for the NIV/TNIV that gets all these errors fixed.

threebigrocks
Nov 18th 2008, 04:25 AM
Closing this temporarily to clean up. This will be moved to Contro once it's reopened. Please know that any insults or behavior that is unChristianlike will also be deleted there. Discuss, but don't attack.

If you see this topic as a hot button - then it's time to chill out.

TrustGzus
Nov 18th 2008, 05:42 AM
What Psalm 12:6-7 is saying is that the important points are still intact. The message He needs us to get is still there. It's very simple.Psalm 12 discussions are going on in a couple threads. I'm going to give my response here since nearly everyone who's discussing these translation issues has found this thread.

Let's look at the whole Psalm and we'll use the KJV for now . . .

To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David.


1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. 2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. 3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things: 4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us? 5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. 6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. 8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.


The Holy Bible : King James Version. Verses 2-4 talk about the words of men:


They speak vanity (v.2)
They speak with flattering lips (v.2)
They speak with a double heart (v.2)
They claim they'll prevail (v.4)

The point of this Psalm is it is contrasting the words of men with the words of God. This is very important. We need to understand the main point of the Psalm.

The LORD then states that he will cut off the flattering lips and the tongue that speaks proud things. The LORD will arise for the oppression of the poor and the sighing of the needy.

Now come the famous KJVO verses. Note that verse 6 can easily be seen to be contrasting the words of men with the words of God. While men speak vanity, speak with flattering lips and a double heart claiming they'll prevail, the words of the LORD are pure words. How pure are they? David provides an illustration: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

David was not speaking of how many English versions it would take for God to get it right. He was using a true to life illustration about purifying of metals to state how pure God's words are compared to the words of humans.

Now comes the other famous verse . . . Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

What does them refer to? In reading the KJV, it could easily be understood to refer to the words of the LORD. Here's the problem. English doesn't use gender like other languages. Other than pronouns like he or she for example, most of our words are genderless. The words poor and needy (see verse 5) have no gender in English. The word words (verse 6) has no gender in English.

So as we read the KJV, is the LORD preserving his words, or is he preserving the poor and needy? Frankly, if we use only the KJV, we can argue in circles all day. It could be taken either way and no one could prove one view correct over the other.

However, it is unambiguous in the Hebrew. In the Hebrew it is crystal clear. In langauges like Greek and Hebrew all these words will correspond to each other by gender. Both times words in verse 6 it is a feminine word. Both times the word them is used in verse 7 it is masculine. So them in verse 6 can not be referring to the words of the LORD. Poor and needy in verse 5 are masculine and so it is the poor and needy that the LORD is preserving.

The KJVO interpretation is impossible based on the Hebrew. The KJV translators didn't mistranslate it. They didn't do anything wrong. It's just that the way they translated it lends itself to this false interpretation due to the genderless nature of English.

Modern translations avoid this problem in Psalm 12 (some more, some less) because modern translators try to be sensitive to different ways people could misread a very literal rendering.

The NKJV made no improvement. The NASB translates the second half of the verse clearer than the KJV. Same with the ESV. Really the NIV and TNIV do a much better job with this verse than any of those.

O Lord, you will keep us safe

and protect us from such people forever.

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) (Ps 12:7). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.


The NIV is less literal because it translates the third person as first person us. But in being less literal, they actually provided a translation that cannot be misinterpreted. So sometimes being the most literal isn't the best thing to do.

The NIV (and TNIV) makes it perfectly clear that in the Hebrew, this verse is referring to people being kept and preserved.

So, to our KJVO brothers and friends, I appreciate and love your zeal. However, your interpretation of this verse is impossible based on the Hebrew.

Even Literalist-Luke misinterpreted this in the quote at the beginning of my post probably because he looked at the KJV rather than his TNIV. An understandable mistake by anyone looking at just the KJV (or NKJV).

So KJVO brothers, if you want to have integrity in this debate of the translations, you must:


abandon this verse as an argument that the KJV is the pure words because it's the 7th English translation. This Psalm has absolutely nothing to do with translations. Anyway, according to KJVO advocate, Dr. D. A. Waite, the KJV is the 17th complete English Bible. David was using an illustration to contrast how pure God's words are compared to human's.
abadon this verse as an argument that God promised to preserve his Word. This verse just simply doesn't say what you want it to say.

One more thought . . . if you look at Psalm 12 and take the KJVO interpretation, the flow of the Psalm is strange. David talks about how men speak, the he talks about the LORD cutting off their lips and tongue. Then David switches gears and totally changes the subject to tell us that God will preserve his word and provide and a perfect English translation on the 7th try, and then in verse 8 he goes back to the subject at hand.

Seems odd doesn't it?

Grace & peace to you, all. And let's be kind as ThreeBigRocks directed.

Joe

Rufus_1611
Nov 18th 2008, 10:37 AM
Psalm 12 discussions are going on in a couple threads. I'm going to give my response here since nearly everyone who's discussing these translation issues has found this thread.

Let's look at the whole Psalm and we'll use the KJV for now . . . Verses 2-4 talk about the words of men:


They speak vanity (v.2)
They speak with flattering lips (v.2)
They speak with a double heart (v.2)
They claim they'll prevail (v.4)
The point of this Psalm is it is contrasting the words of men with the words of God. This is very important. We need to understand the main point of the Psalm.

The LORD then states that he will cut off the flattering lips and the tongue that speaks proud things. The LORD will arise for the oppression of the poor and the sighing of the needy.

Now come the famous KJVO verses. Note that verse 6 can easily be seen to be contrasting the words of men with the words of God. While men speak vanity, speak with flattering lips and a double heart claiming they'll prevail, the words of the LORD are pure words. How pure are they? David provides an illustration: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

David was not speaking of how many English versions it would take for God to get it right. He was using a true to life illustration about purifying of metals to state how pure God's words are compared to the words of humans.

Now comes the other famous verse . . . Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

What does them refer to? In reading the KJV, it could easily be understood to refer to the words of the LORD. Here's the problem. English doesn't use gender like other languages. Other than pronouns like he or she for example, most of our words are genderless. The words poor and needy (see verse 5) have no gender in English. The word words (verse 6) has no gender in English.

So as we read the KJV, is the LORD preserving his words, or is he preserving the poor and needy? Frankly, if we use only the KJV, we can argue in circles all day. It could be taken either way and no one could prove one view correct over the other.

However, it is unambiguous in the Hebrew. In the Hebrew it is crystal clear. In langauges like Greek and Hebrew all these words will correspond to each other by gender. Both times words in verse 6 it is a feminine word. Both times the word them is used in verse 7 it is masculine. So them in verse 6 can not be referring to the words of the LORD. Poor and needy in verse 5 are masculine and so it is the poor and needy that the LORD is preserving.

The KJVO interpretation is impossible based on the Hebrew. The KJV translators didn't mistranslate it. They didn't do anything wrong. It's just that the way they translated it lends itself to this false interpretation due to the genderless nature of English.

Modern translations avoid this problem in Psalm 12 (some more, some less) because modern translators try to be sensitive to different ways people could misread a very literal rendering.

The NKJV made no improvement. The NASB translates the second half of the verse clearer than the KJV. Same with the ESV. Really the NIV and TNIV do a much better job with this verse than any of those.The NIV is less literal because it translates the third person as first person us. But in being less literal, they actually provided a translation that cannot be misinterpreted. So sometimes being the most literal isn't the best thing to do.

The NIV (and TNIV) makes it perfectly clear that in the Hebrew, this verse is referring to people being kept and preserved.

So, to our KJVO brothers and friends, I appreciate and love your zeal. However, your interpretation of this verse is impossible based on the Hebrew.

Even Literalist-Luke misinterpreted this in the quote at the beginning of my post probably because he looked at the KJV rather than his TNIV. An understandable mistake by anyone looking at just the KJV (or NKJV).

So KJVO brothers, if you want to have integrity in this debate of the translations, you must:


abandon this verse as an argument that the KJV is the pure words because it's the 7th English translation. This Psalm has absolutely nothing to do with translations. Anyway, according to KJVO advocate, Dr. D. A. Waite, the KJV is the 17th complete English Bible. David was using an illustration to contrast how pure God's words are compared to human's.
abadon this verse as an argument that God promised to preserve his Word. This verse just simply doesn't say what you want it to say.
One more thought . . . if you look at Psalm 12 and take the KJVO interpretation, the flow of the Psalm is strange. David talks about how men speak, the he talks about the LORD cutting off their lips and tongue. Then David switches gears and totally changes the subject to tell us that God will preserve his word and provide and a perfect English translation on the 7th try, and then in verse 8 he goes back to the subject at hand.

Seems odd doesn't it?

Grace & peace to you, all. And let's be kind as ThreeBigRocks directed.

Joe I will not abandon the word of God...if that causes me to lose integrity in your mind so be it. What I would desire a concession on is that the MVers commonly say that there is no difference in doctrine between these various books. I believe the doctrine of preservation to be a very important doctrine. One that your above post shows that if one reads the KJV they will get one doctrine and if one reads the TNIV will get a very different doctrine. Bottom-line, whatever anyone says, what one can not honestly say is that all of these books say the same thing. They are different books with different doctrines. I believe the word of the Lord declares that He has promised to preserve His word forever, another group declares He made no such promise. The root of the difference in these two positions is that the two groups are reading from two very different books.

Fenris
Nov 18th 2008, 12:19 PM
The KJB can't be the pure word of God. One example: God did not say "let there be light", in English. He said "VaYehi Ohr", in Hebrew.

tgallison
Nov 18th 2008, 12:54 PM
The KJB can't be the pure word of God. One example: God did not say "let there be light", in English. He said "VaYehi Ohr", in Hebrew.

Do you speak for God? Can you put chains on his hands and limit what he can or cannot do, or say? Who gave us speech? Do you know all that God has said or done?

Fenris
Nov 18th 2008, 01:29 PM
Do you speak for God? Can you put chains on his hands and limit what he can or cannot do, or say? Who gave us speech? Do you know all that God has said or done?
Are you seriously contending that God spoke in English?

Fenris
Nov 18th 2008, 01:34 PM
Anyway, as has been pointed out, the KJB has many translation errors.

It's not a total wash. The KJB captures the poetry of the Hebrew text bible very well, perhaps better than any other translation. But for accuracy, I would look elsewhere.

Marc B
Nov 18th 2008, 02:21 PM
Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

Now we know why KJ readers believe in keeping Easter instead of Passover.

Also note that the interpretaton of the Holy Spirit as being a male personality by the English translations isn't infallible.

John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

ο definite article - nominative singular masculine
ho ho: the definite article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom) -- the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc.

ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ·

HisLeast
Nov 18th 2008, 02:33 PM
Given my love of the Renaissance Faire and medieval / renaissance culture, I can read the old English at least some of the time. My wife on the other hand... you might as well be reading her Russian dictated with a thick Cantonese accent. Poor woman. With no hope of salvation, she has naught but eternal hellfire to look forward to.

tgallison
Nov 18th 2008, 02:52 PM
Are you seriously contending that God spoke in English?

Do you limit God to Hebrew? What language does the Spirit use when he speaks to one's heart?

Fenris
Nov 18th 2008, 03:02 PM
Do you limit God to Hebrew? Nope. But since the bible was written in Hebrew, one may assume that the transcripts of the character's speaking was in that language.


What language does the Spirit use when he speaks to one's heart?
Whatever language you speak. Not necessarily English.

tgallison
Nov 18th 2008, 03:08 PM
[quote=Fenris;1871960]Nope. But since the bible was written in Hebrew, one may assume that the transcripts of the character's speaking was in that language.

Was Ezra and Daniel written in Hebrew in your Bible?


Whatever language you speak. Not necessarily English.

Fenris
Nov 18th 2008, 03:18 PM
[quote]

Was Ezra and Daniel written in Hebrew in your Bible?Parts are Hebrew, and parts are Aramaic.

Did God say "let there be light" in English?

threebigrocks
Nov 18th 2008, 03:26 PM
Do you limit God to Hebrew? What language does the Spirit use when he speaks to one's heart?

When the Spirit speaks to our heart, it's a spiritual language. Our puny human minds understand however that happens because the Holy Spirit reveals it to us. That goes beyond culture. I don't hear the Spirit in King Jimmy's english! I'm not using my ears then but my heart.

threebigrocks
Nov 18th 2008, 03:29 PM
[quote=tgallison;1871965]Parts are Hebrew, and parts are Aramaic.

Did God say "let there be light" in English?

That's how they were written down, in Hebrew and Aramaic. Doesn't mean that's what was spoken at the moment light was born to shine on the earth.

My kids think I'm really old, but I'm not that old. I wasn't there. It was written down by what was understood in the language that was known. Moses didn't hear it in KJ english either, I can pretty much gaurantee you that.

Fenris
Nov 18th 2008, 03:34 PM
That's how they were written down, in Hebrew and Aramaic. Doesn't mean that's what was spoken at the moment light was born to shine on the earth.

...Moses didn't hear it in KJ english either, I can pretty much gaurantee you that.
If we accept that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, then God spoke to him in Hebrew at the very least. If he accurately transcribed everything that happened, then yes, God spoke Hebrew during the creation saga.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 18th 2008, 04:33 PM
I will not abandon the word of God...if that causes me to lose integrity in your mind so be it.Using the KJV causes you to “lose integrity” in the mind of nobody here. What causes one to lost integrity here is legalistically and puritanically insisting that other people use a translation that they do not want and that does a less effective job of ministering to them than another translation. What translation you or anybody chooses to use is your own business and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. When somebody makes it their business to assert that somebody is not getting the job done unless you use one certain translation, it becomes meddling and legalism. I for one am a very easy-going person and do everything I can to get along with everyone around me – until you start trying to impose legalistic restrictions on me like “you have to use the KJV”. At that point, the gloves will come off very quickly.
What I would desire a concession on is that the MVers commonly say that there is no difference in doctrine between these various books. You will never, ever, ever get any such concession from me. I absolutely will NOT agree that using a modern translation results in doctrinal impurity. So just quit wasting your time by even trying.
I believe the doctrine of preservation to be a very important doctrine.You have a right to hold to that belief and nobody here will have any problem with it – unless and until you start insisting that others agree with you. Then it becomes legalism.

Romans 14:22 – “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.” (KJV)
One that your above post shows that if one reads the KJV they will get one doctrine and if one reads the TNIV will get a very different doctrine. That doctrinal difference of your is based on your interpretation of the text, NOT the content of the text. I could take the NIV/TNIV text of that Psalm and come up with the exact same doctrine if I so chose. I could make a list of my pet seven translations and insist that the NIV/TNIV is the “preserved” version of the Bible. That fact that the OP didn’t even get the number of translations leading up to the KJV correct (nine instead of seven) is proof of the spuriousness of KJV-onliers use of that Psalm for a purpose that is contrary to King David’s message when he penned that Psalm.
Bottom-line, whatever anyone says, what one can not honestly say is that all of these books say the same thing. Watch me. I say now for the record for all here that a person who rightly divides the Word of Truth in the NIV/TNIV translation and another person who RIGHTLY divides the Word of Truth in the KJV translation will both come away with the exact same set of doctrines and beliefs. Any attempt to convince me otherwise is an exercise in futility and a waste of time.
They are different books with different doctrines.Wrong. We are two different people with two different interpretations.
I believe the word of the Lord declares that He has promised to preserve His word forever, another group declares He made no such promise. Again, wrong. His promise stands, in that the purity of our doctrines remains unaffected by modern translations.
The root of the difference in these two positions is that the two groups are reading from two very different books.And equally valid they are, too.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 18th 2008, 04:37 PM
Do you limit God to Hebrew? What language does the Spirit use when he speaks to one's heart?Considering that English as a language didn't even exist in its Chaucerian form until after William the Conqueror invaded the British Isles in 1066 AD, I would say it's safe to cross English off the list of languages that God might have spoken, since the Bible was finished around 95 AD.

tgallison
Nov 18th 2008, 05:27 PM
When the Spirit speaks to our heart, it's a spiritual language. Our puny human minds understand however that happens because the Holy Spirit reveals it to us. That goes beyond culture. I don't hear the Spirit in King Jimmy's english! I'm not using my ears then but my heart.

You can degrade King Jimmy's Bible if you like, but God chose to use it to reveal himself for hundreds of years to more people than any other Bible written. It would seem it is unworthy of the contempt that is displayed for it on this board.

tgallison
Nov 18th 2008, 05:31 PM
Considering that English as a language didn't even exist in its Chaucerian form until after William the Conqueror invaded the British Isles in 1066 AD, I would say it's safe to cross English off the list of languages that God might have spoken, since the Bible was finished around 95 AD.

What language would you consider that Adam used, since his language was confounded at the Tower of Babel?

Vhayes
Nov 18th 2008, 05:33 PM
You can degrade King Jimmy's Bible if you like, but God chose to use it to reveal himself for hundreds of years to more people than any other Bible written. It would seem it is unworthy of the contempt that is displayed for it on this board.I don't think anyone is showing "contempt" although I haven't read the entire thread. I DID see contempt, or at least disrespect, for any other translation.

As for your other argument, the Catholic Church was used exclusively for hundreds of years - so are you Catholic for that reason?

Let each learn from the translation that is easiest for them to read and grow. If the Lord wishes and they are open and listening, they will move to a different translation - perhaps even the King James version.

V

Fenris
Nov 18th 2008, 05:35 PM
What language would you consider that Adam used, since his language was confounded at the Tower of Babel?
I know the question isn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway: Hebrew.

tgallison
Nov 18th 2008, 05:44 PM
I know the question isn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway: Hebrew.

Do you have proof? All of Noah's children were divided by tongues.

"These are the sons of Shem after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations."(Genesis 10:31)

Literalist-Luke
Nov 18th 2008, 05:47 PM
You can degrade King Jimmy's Bible if you like, but God chose to use it to reveal himself for hundreds of years to more people than any other Bible written. It would seem it is unworthy of the contempt that is displayed for it on this board.There is no contempt on this board for the excellent KJV. The only contempt here is for the legalism of imposing it on others.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 18th 2008, 05:50 PM
What language would you consider that Adam used, since his language was confounded at the Tower of Babel?Irrelevant. It wasn't English.

Fenris
Nov 18th 2008, 05:51 PM
Do you have proof?
None that you would accept.

tgallison
Nov 18th 2008, 05:55 PM
[quote=Vhayes;1872205]I don't think anyone is showing "contempt" although I haven't read the entire thread. I DID see contempt, or at least disrespect, for any other translation.

Not wanting to get into an argument over translations, but IMO the new translations are a sign of the times, with people having itching ears. Their method of translation is hindered by the need to alter the reading of it, due to copyrights.


As for your other argument, the Catholic Church was used exclusively for hundreds of years - so are you Catholic for that reason?The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for.


Let each learn from the translation that is easiest for them to read and grow. If the Lord wishes and they are open and listening, they will move to a different translation - perhaps even the King James version.I have been in a debate with a person over the meanings in a particular biblical book. And in that debate he goes to the translation that has the word he wants to use, even when it is the only translation that uses that word. He shops for the right translation.

tgallison
Nov 18th 2008, 05:56 PM
None that you would accept.

You have aroused my curiosity.

Fenris
Nov 18th 2008, 06:05 PM
You have aroused my curiosity.
OK, well here's something from the plain text-


We see evidence that Adam spoke Hebrew because he gave Eve two names, each of which makes sense only in Hebrew. He called her isha (woman) because "she was taken from ish (man)," and he called her Chava (Eve) because "she was to be Mother of all chai (life)." The very name Adam is from the Hebrew word adamah (earth), referring to the fact that G-d created Adam from the earth.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 18th 2008, 06:14 PM
Not wanting to get into an argument over translationsYou’re just wanting us to accept your point of view at face value with no dissent.
IMO the new translations are a sign of the times, with people having itching ears. At least you were honest enough to label that as nothing more than just your opinion.
Their method of translation is hindered by the need to alter the reading of it, due to copyrights. Perhaps you’ll be good enough to explain which translation the NKJV made their 10% alterations from. And then after you fail to answer that question, could you at least tell us whose translation the NIV Committee started with and made their 10% alterations? Oh, can’t answer that one either? Well, how about the NASB? Since these were all based on original language texts that were older, more authentic, and more reliable than the ones used by the KJV translators, looks like you won’t be answering my question anytime soon. I’ll leave the light on for you.
The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for. So does the Protestant Church that was using the KJV translation. Let’s see slavery, forced migration of millions of Native Americans, a civil war that killed more Americans than any other war in our history, decades of blatant racism that is only now just starting to go away, AFTER we have the modern translations…..
I have been in a debate with a person over the meanings in a particular biblical book. And in that debate he goes to the translation that has the word he wants use, even when it is the only translation that uses that word. He shops for the right translation.So he’s an inconsistent debater, what does that have to do with translations? All you have to do is whip out the original language text and see what the original writer had in mind. Oh, I forgot, you consider the KJV translation to be superior to the original texts. Well, if somebody insists the sky is red, there’s not a whole lot you can argue with them about.

tgallison
Nov 18th 2008, 06:42 PM
[quote=Literalist-Luke;1872316]You’re just wanting us to accept your point of view at face value with no dissent.

That works for me.


At least you were honest enough to label that as nothing more than just your opinion.Perhaps you’ll be good enough to explain which translation the NKJV made their 10% alterations from.

Not sure what your implication is, but you might better ask the 7 NIV translators that were on the NKJV committee, why they tried to destroy the KJV. They had to distort the King James in order to get a copyright.


And then after you fail to answer that question, could you at least tell us whose translation the NIV Committee started with and made their 10% alterations? Oh, can’t answer that one either? Well, how about the NASB? Since these were all based on original language texts that were older, more authentic, and more reliable than the ones used by the KJV translators, looks like you won’t be answering my question anytime soon.

Evidently you have never sat down and compared all these translations to see the verbal gymnastics they had to go through to have their own distinct translation, along with a copyright.


I’ll leave the light on for you.So does the Protestant Church that was using the KJV translation. Let’s see slavery, forced migration of millions of Native Americans, a civil war that killed more Americans than any other war in our history, decades of blatant racism that is only now just starting to go away, AFTER we have the modern translations…..So he’s an inconsistent debater, what does that have to do with translations? All you have to do is whip out the original language text and see what the original writer had in mind. Oh, I forgot, you consider the KJV translation to be superior to the original texts. Well, if somebody insists the sky is red, there’s not a whole lot you can argue with them about.

I don't remember the protestants telling their people that they were not smart enough to understand the Word of God.

Rufus_1611
Nov 18th 2008, 06:48 PM
Using the KJV causes you to “lose integrity” in the mind of nobody here. Well I guess this is the rub...I'm allowed to use it without criticism but when I believe it, that's when I "lose integrity".


What causes one to lost integrity here is legalistically and puritanically insisting that other people use a translation that they do not want and that does a less effective job of ministering to them than another translation. What translation you or anybody chooses to use is your own business and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. When somebody makes it their business to assert that somebody is not getting the job done unless you use one certain translation, it becomes meddling and legalism. Legalism is adding works to salvation...I don't do this.


I for one am a very easy-going person and do everything I can to get along with everyone around me – until you start trying to impose legalistic restrictions on me like “you have to use the KJV”. I have applied no restrictions to you, I believe in soul liberty and am not about to restrict you in any way whatsoever.


At that point, the gloves will come off very quickly.



You will never, ever, ever get any such concession from me. I absolutely will NOT agree that using a modern translation results in doctrinal impurity. So just quit wasting your time by even trying.You have a right to hold to that belief and nobody here will have any problem with it – unless and until you start insisting that others agree with you. Then it becomes legalism. I did not say anything about the purity or lack of purity in doctrine. I am saying that you read your book and you get a doctrine that says God did not promise to preserve his words. I read my book and I get a doctrine that says God promised to preserve His words. Regardless, of who is right, these are different doctrines formed from the reading of different words because we are reading different books.


Romans 14:22 – “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.” (KJV)That doctrinal difference of your is based on your interpretation of the text, NOT the content of the text. The content of the text is about as right between the eyes as it gets. It says the words of the Lord are pure words and thou (Lord) shall keep them and thou (Lord) shall preserve them from this generation for ever. What other interpretation can you get out of this? The words of the Lord are pure, He promises to preserve His words from this generation for ever. Thus saith the word of God.


I could take the NIV/TNIV text of that Psalm and come up with the exact same doctrine if I so chose. I could make a list of my pet seven translations and insist that the NIV/TNIV is the “preserved” version of the Bible. It's not my list of pet seven translations. It is the list the AV translators used along with the original languages.


That fact that the OP didn’t even get the number of translations leading up to the KJV correct (nine instead of seven) is proof of the spuriousness of KJV-onliers use of that Psalm for a purpose that is contrary to King David’s message when he penned that Psalm.

Watch me. I say now for the record for all here that a person who rightly divides the Word of Truth in the NIV/TNIV translation and another person who RIGHTLY divides the Word of Truth in the KJV translation will both come away with the exact same set of doctrines and beliefs. Any attempt to convince me otherwise is an exercise in futility and a waste of time. They are different books, with different words, that lead to different doctrines.



Wrong. We are two different people with two different interpretations.Again, wrong. His promise stands, in that the purity of our doctrines remains unaffected by modern translations.And equally valid they are, too.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 18th 2008, 06:52 PM
That works for me.The prosecution rests.
Not sure what your implication is, but you might better ask the 7 NIV translators that were on the NKJV committee, why they tried to destroy the KJV. They weren’t destroying it, they were saving it from its own translational and textual errors.
They had to distort the King James in order to get a copyright. They had to correct the King James, and were entitled to a copyright because of that.
Evidently you have never sat down and compared all these translations to see the verbal gymnastics they had to go through to have their own distinct translation, along with a copyright.I look at different translations every day and find them all very useful. What amazes me is the logical gymnastics in asserting that a translation as riddled with errors as is the KJV (as I documented in an earlier post in this same thread) is to be considered “infallible”.
I don't remember the protestants telling their people that they were not smart enough to understand the Word of God.No, but their KJV-dominated society sure had its own problems.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 18th 2008, 07:00 PM
Well I guess this is the rub...I'm allowed to use it without criticism but when I believe it, that's when I "lose integrity".You’re just not getting this. Use it and believe it all you want. But don’t tell us that we have to use it too.
Legalism is adding works to salvation...I don't do this.You’re insisting that people using other translations are victims of doctrinal impurity, which would certainly seem to me to put one’s salvation at risk, if it were true.
I have applied no restrictions to you, I believe in soul liberty and am not about to restrict you in any way whatsoever.Just so long as I’m using the KJV, huh?
I did not say anything about the purity or lack of purity in doctrine. I am saying that you read your book and you get a doctrine that says God did not promise to preserve his words. I read my book and I get a doctrine that says God promised to preserve His words. Regardless, of who is right, these are different doctrines formed from the reading of different words because we are reading different books.The words did not cause the difference. What caused the difference was the interpretation of those words.
The content of the text is about as right between the eyes as it gets. It says the words of the Lord are pure words and thou (Lord) shall keep them and thou (Lord) shall preserve them from this generation for ever. What other interpretation can you get out of this? The words of the Lord are pure, He promises to preserve His words from this generation for ever. Thus saith the word of God.And He has done a fabulous job of preserving His Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words.
It's not my list of pet seven translations. It is the list the AV translators used along with the original languages. Irrelevant. I could still twist the meaning in like manner if I so chose.
They are different books, with different words, that lead to different doctrines.Considering the long list of translational errors that I’ve already posted in the KJV, I know which of those different book appears more reliable to me.

Rufus_1611
Nov 18th 2008, 07:11 PM
You’re just not getting this. Use it and believe it all you want. But don’t tell us that we have to use it too. I have not told you you have to do anything. I've told you where the inerrant, preserved word of God can be found. Do with that information what you will.


You’re insisting that people using other translations are victims of doctrinal impurity, which would certainly seem to me to put one’s salvation at risk, if it were true. There's more to the Holy Bible than eternal salvation. If one believes they are saved by grace alone through faith alone by the shed blood of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins plus nothing else, they are eternally saved. Once a man becomes born-again, then it's time for him to run a race. Having the pure words of God in your hands will help a believer win that race and attain the prize.


Just so long as I’m using the KJV, huh? What, specifically, are the restrictions you believe I am going to apply to you?



The words did not cause the difference. What caused the difference was the interpretation of those words.And He has done a fabulous job of preserving His Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words. Timeout. By your previous testimony God did not perfectly, preserve His words in any language. In the preceding paragraph are you now saying that God did preserve His words in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic and you're changing positions or are you saying He preserved them, just not perfectly or are you saying something else I'm missing?


Irrelevant. I could still twist the meaning in like manner if I so chose. Sure. You could but I didn't...that's my point.



Considering the long list of translational errors that I’ve already posted in the KJV, I know which of those different book appears more reliable to me. You've posted them but, with all respect intended, it is you that is errant on these matters not the word of God.

tgallison
Nov 18th 2008, 07:13 PM
[quote=Fenris;1872292]OK, well here's something from the plain text-

We see evidence that Adam spoke Hebrew because he gave Eve two names, each of which makes sense only in Hebrew. He called her isha (woman) because "she was taken from ish (man)," and he called her Chava (Eve) because "she was to be Mother of all chai (life)." The very name Adam is from the Hebrew word adamah (earth), referring to the fact that G-d created Adam from the earth.

Fenris while you may be right about the language of Adam being Hebrew, and whether, what you say, may or may not have merit, since the language could be founded upon the known facts, I appreciate the information contained in your reply.

Br. Barnabas
Nov 18th 2008, 07:20 PM
tgallison,

In all the threads on this subject where you have chimed in with the 10% difference required by copyright laws I have yet to see where you have provided proof of this law or requirement. I would suggest you provide proof or stop referring to it. Because when one translates from the manuscripts I don't believe that they have to come up with a different translation from some other translation. They do because word order does not really matter in Greek and somewhat in Hebrew so we can change sentence structure around and see that a passage might need to be read differently. That and committees look at all the different possible ways a word can be translated and choose which they think best fits the passage. Also since English has such a large vocabulary translators have many different words that could be used to give a better understanding of what the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramic word means in our language.

All the above is saying is provide proof to what you claim and understand that translation vary because of the people making them not because of some imginary law or requirement that says they be 10% different.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 18th 2008, 07:25 PM
I have not told you you have to do anything. I've told you where the inerrant, preserved word of God can be found. Do with that information what you will.Thank you.
There's more to the Holy Bible than eternal salvation. If one believes they are saved by grace alone through faith alone by the shed blood of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins plus nothing else, they are eternally saved. Once a man becomes born-again, then it's time for him to run a race. Having the pure words of God in your hands will help a believer win that race and attain the prize.What doctrinal errors would result from a modern translation?
What, specifically, are the restrictions you believe I am going to apply to you?Which translation to use.
Timeout. By your previous testimony God did not perfectly, preserve His words in any language. In the preceding paragraph are you now saying that God did preserve His words in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic and you're changing positions or are you saying He preserved them, just not perfectly or are you saying something else I'm missing?I’m saying that He preserved His Word perfectly in the original texts. The pristine message is still there, even without the autograph originals.
Sure. You could but I didn't...that's my point. I don’t agree with your interpretation, so we will apparently have to agree to disagree.
You've posted them but, with all respect intended, it is you that is errant on these matters not the word of God.The original texts say x, but the KJV says y, so the original texts are wrong because the KJV is (supposedly) perfect, but the KJV varies from the original texts, but the original texts are wrong because the KJV is perfect, but the KJV varies from the original texts, but the original texts are wrong……

This is circular reasoning, which cannot be dealt with in any degree of logic.

David Taylor
Nov 18th 2008, 07:26 PM
I don't know...I don't speak Spanish or Amerindian. What do you plan on passing out?

Spanish Bibles...pretty simple.

What is the perfect Bible in "God's pure words" for Spanish speaking/reading people, who do not speak English?

Does one exist, or is the English KJV the only example of "God's pure words" given to humanity by God?

Do non-English speaking people have to learn English, to get the opportunity to read "God's pure words"?

Fenris
Nov 18th 2008, 07:55 PM
Do non-English speaking people have to learn English, to get the opportunity to read "God's pure words"?
I'll do one better.

If someone only reads Hebrew, should the KJV be translated back into Hebrew so that someone can read God's pure words? :hmm:

tgallison
Nov 18th 2008, 08:25 PM
tgallison,

In all the threads on this subject where you have chimed in with the 10% difference required by copyright laws I have yet to see where you have provided proof of this law or requirement. I would suggest you provide proof or stop referring to it.

All the above is saying is provide proof to what you claim and understand that translation vary because of the people making them not because of some imginary law or requirement that says they be 10% different.

Uriel greetings

Doesn't logic tell you, that if what I am saying is untrue, your side would have nailed me on it long ago.

I have tried researching it as you probably have. The copyright office processes the request for a copyright patent. You do not need to have a copyright patent to own a copyright. The copyright is automatic. Your work is your work. The problem is if your work is to much like someone else's work, and it becomes a lawsuit.

The patent is a help in a lawsuit, but not a guarantee. I understand that in order to protect yourself from a lawsuit, is when the more than 10% comes into play. It is a standard that the industry respects. Thus the reason for the verbal gymnastics is to protect one's self from lawsuits, if you desire to possess rights to a work.

If one had no concern for a copyright they could take the KJB and change the old English into new English and publish the book in the U.S. without regards to a lawsuit from the King James Bible since there is no copyright in the U.S. for the King James Bible.

That is not what the NKJB publishers did. They had to alter it enough so that they could obtain a copyright for it. If there is an existing work that has no copyright attached to it , you cannot copy it, and then claim it is your work in order to hold a copyright.

Rufus_1611
Nov 18th 2008, 08:27 PM
Spanish Bibles...pretty simple. Which Spanish Bibles?


What is the perfect Bible in "God's pure words" for Spanish speaking/reading people, who do not speak English? I do not know.


Does one exist, or is the English KJV the only example of "God's pure words" given to humanity by God? I do not know.


Do non-English speaking people have to learn English, to get the opportunity to read "God's pure words"? I do not know.

Rufus_1611
Nov 18th 2008, 08:31 PM
Thank you.What doctrinal errors would result from a modern translation? The doctrinal error that God did not promise to preserve His word for one.


Which translation to use. I have no authority over you. I can not restrict you to do anything or not do anything.


I’m saying that He preserved His Word perfectly in the original texts. Alright. I believe you've changed positions but okay. I'd like to have the perfect word of God in the original texts. Will you give me these texts or point me to where I can get them?


The pristine message is still there, even without the autograph originals.I don’t agree with your interpretation, so we will apparently have to agree to disagree.The original texts say x, but the KJV says y, so the original texts are wrong because the KJV is (supposedly) perfect, but the KJV varies from the original texts, but the original texts are wrong because the KJV is perfect, but the KJV varies from the original texts, but the original texts are wrong……

This is circular reasoning, which cannot be dealt with in any degree of logic. Which original texts are you referring to?

Literalist-Luke
Nov 18th 2008, 08:57 PM
That is not what the NKJB publishers did. They had to alter it enough so that they could obtain a copyright for it. If there is an existing work that has no copyright attached to it , you cannot copy it, and then claim it is your work in order to hold a copyright.Your argument would hold water if only 10% of the NKJV were different from the original, but a lot more than 10% is different, so I guess they were shooting for something else besides a mere copyright claim.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 18th 2008, 09:01 PM
The doctrinal error that God did not promise to preserve His word for one.I could get that doctrine from my TNIV is I wanted to.

I'd like to have the perfect word of God in the original texts. Will you give me these texts or point me to where I can get them?You’ll find a very reasonable English translation of them in the TNIV.
Which original texts are you referring to?The most authentic one – the ones used by the modern versions. :D

Rufus_1611
Nov 18th 2008, 09:18 PM
I could get that doctrine from my TNIV is I wanted to.You’ll find a very reasonable English translation of them in the TNIV. I don't want a "reasonable" translation, I want the perfect, incorruptible words of a perfect and Holy God. Please help me by telling me where I can find them.


The most authentic one – the ones used by the modern versions. :D Specifically please.

Fenris
Nov 18th 2008, 09:29 PM
I don't want a "reasonable" translation, I want the perfect, incorruptible words of a perfect and Holy God. Please help me by telling me where I can find them.

Specifically please.Learn Hebrew and Greek.

I actually know an Evangelical Christian who did that. :)

Br. Barnabas
Nov 18th 2008, 10:00 PM
Uriel greetings

Doesn't logic tell you, that if what I am saying is untrue, your side would have nailed me on it long ago.

I have tried researching it as you probably have. The copyright office processes the request for a copyright patent. You do not need to have a copyright patent to own a copyright. The copyright is automatic. Your work is your work. The problem is if your work is to much like someone else's work, and it becomes a lawsuit.

The patent is a help in a lawsuit, but not a guarantee. I understand that in order to protect yourself from a lawsuit, is when the more than 10% comes into play. It is a standard that the industry respects. Thus the reason for the verbal gymnastics is to protect one's self from lawsuits, if you desire to possess rights to a work.

If one had no concern for a copyright they could take the KJB and change the old English into new English and publish the book in the U.S. without regards to a lawsuit from the King James Bible since there is no copyright in the U.S. for the King James Bible.

That is not what the NKJB publishers did. They had to alter it enough so that they could obtain a copyright for it. If there is an existing work that has no copyright attached to it , you cannot copy it, and then claim it is your work in order to hold a copyright.

But if two translation committees do their own work with proof that they have not copied some other translation then they should be able to translate from ancient manuscripts and possibly come up with the same translation without any lawsuit because they have not copied.

For example while I was writing a paper for a class and came up with the same idea that a scholar did in a book before reading the book. Since I read the book after I wrote that part of the paper or had the idea for it I still had to show that this other person agreed with what I had concluded but I did not have to give him credit for my idea (or our similar ideas). Instead I just had to show that he also agreed with me and said the same kinda thing. Now if I had not read his book then I would not have had to reference it in a foot note because I came up with the idea all on my own; but since I did I had to show that I had read it somewhere or that it had come up somewhere in my research. The same goes would most likely go for translation teams. Because they don't own the manuscripts they are borrowed or photographed and then translated. If one group comes up with the same translation for one passage then that is fine because it is what the manuscript says. But most teams will not do that because they think that certain words should be translated differently or they are using a different vocbulary all together.

For example the NRSV will use a high vocabulary than the NLT will because the NLT is meant for everyday reading or for an easier read; where as the NRSV is meant for a more educated reading and a more scholarly read. So the two teams will use different words that mean the same thing. So they are not doing verbal gymnastics to get different translations. And I am still not totally convinced that they have to make them 10% different.

Br. Barnabas
Nov 18th 2008, 10:05 PM
Learn Hebrew and Greek.

I actually know an Evangelical Christian who did that. :)

I've known many in fact I am one of them. They are not that hard to learn the basics. Although it will take a long time to get to where one can translate easily or even get any real meaning from the text because it takes a lot more then just knowledge of language. One also needs to have knowledge of how the language works and the history behind the writings.

To get knowledge of how the language works one must look beyond the Biblical works and look at things like Josephus and Philo and some poetry and philosophy.

Marc B
Nov 19th 2008, 03:52 AM
There's more to the Holy Bible than eternal salvation. If one believes they are saved by grace alone through faith alone by the shed blood of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins plus nothing else, they are eternally saved. Once a man becomes born-again, then it's time for him to run a race. Having the pure words of God in your hands will help a believer win that race and attain the prize.
Are you saying we only have to believe? Nothing else and we are saved no matter what we do?
What is this race we have to run? I'm not trying to be cute but I want to understand you point of view on salvation. :confused

TrustGzus
Nov 19th 2008, 04:27 AM
I will not abandon the word of GodNo one in this debate wants to abandon the word of God. No one in this debate is abandoning the word of God. Everyone should be willing to put their views on the table and allow their views to be analyzed and if any of our views are found to not be in accord with reality, then we should abandon them.
...if that causes me to lose integrity in your mind so be it.What I mean by that is that if an idea is definitively proven to be false, yet one continues to proclaim that after seeing this, it shows then that the goal is simply to win the argument, prove the other guy wrong at all costs.

I've explained that due to the gender aspects of the original language, the KJVO interpretation of Psalm 12 is impossible from the Hebrew. You are welcome to hold to the KJVO interpretation. Provide a counter to the argument. I am open to listen and willing to be proven wrong.
What I would desire a concession on is that the MVers commonly say that there is no difference in doctrine between these various books. I believe the doctrine of preservation to be a very important doctrine. One that your above post shows that if one reads the KJV they will get one doctrine and if one reads the TNIV will get a very different doctrine.This is not exactly true. While one can read the KJVO interpretation from the KJV rendition of Psalm 12:6-7, it isn't the only interpretation available. The interpretation the NIV provides is also available in the KJV. Thus, no guaranteed difference in doctrine. I will prove it later with a quote from a KJV commentary.

The problem, as I stated, is that the KJV translated this passage in such a way that it could be taken either way. But the Hebrew does not leave us that option. Since words like them and poor and needy and words don't have gender in English, one loses the points of reference in English, references or assocations that the Hebrew makes.
Bottom-line, whatever anyone says, what one can not honestly say is that all of these books say the same thing. They are different books with different doctrines.Again, your interpretation is only one possible interpretation of the KJV rendering. Them in verse 7 can be referring to the poor and needy. In the KJV it's really impossible to tell if them is referring to the poor and needy or if it's referring to the words of God. Again, the Hebrew is completely unambiguous.
I believe the word of the Lord declares that He has promised to preserve His word forever, another group declares He made no such promise. The root of the difference in these two positions is that the two groups are reading from two very different books.Nope. Not reading two different books. It's just that you are only allowing one possible interpretation that is only available in an English translation - an interpretation that isn't available in the original langauge.

Let me bring another witness to the stand. A witness who didn't have a modern version to tamper with his view of Psalm 12 . . . Matthew Henry. Matthew Henry died June 22, 1714. The current 1769 edition of the KJV wasn't even available in his time. He died 167 years before the Revised Version came out so that had no effect on him. Interestingly, Matthew Henry comes out with the same doctrine as an MVer would using the NIV or TNIV . . .

That God will secure his chosen remnant to himself, how bad soever the times are (v. 7): Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. This intimates that, as long as the world stands, there will be a generation of proud and wicked men in it, more or less, who will threaten by their wretched arts to ruin religion, by wearing out the saints of the Most High, Dan. 7:25. But let God alone to maintain his own interest and to preserve his own people. He will keep them from this generation, (1.) From being debauched by them and drawn away from God, from mingling with them and learning their works. In times of general apostasy the Lord knows those that are his, and they shall be enabled to keep their integrity. (2.) From being destroyed and rooted out by them. The church is built upon a rock, and so well fortified that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. In the worst of times God has his remnant, and in every age will reserve to himself a holy seed and preserve that to his heavenly kingdom.

Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume (Ps 13:1). Peabody: Hendrickson.


Italics are Matthew Henry's, not mine. So even Matthew Henry, without any modern version to "corrupt" his interpretation of Psalm 12, came to the same view as the NIV presents yet he did it using the KJV. There goes the two different books theory. The doctrines are the same in both the KJV and modern versions. The doctrine of preservation was not known from Psalm 12 by David who wrote it, nor from any readers of the Hebrew or Septuagint.

So what do we do, do we take a doctrine from a misinterpretation by some people of a rendering from 17th century English translation and correct the Hebrew with it? What do we do with the people from the time of David (about 1000 b.c.) till the KJV who didn't have this view of the KJVO camp? Actually, as we've seen even after the KJV was finished, people didn't take Psalm 12:6-7 as a reference to God preserving his words and producing a perfect 7th English edition in the KJV. Matthew Henry didn't take it that way.

I'm all for sound biblical doctrine. I love systematic theology. If the Bible teaches a doctrine of the preservation of Scripture, then I will gladly teach it. If I teach that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the dead, that all are sinners and that we can be saved only by grace alone through faith alone through Jesus alone, that Jesus is virgin born and fully human and fully God, the Trinity and that Jesus will interpret the flow of history to establish his kingdom, then I would have no reason not to teach the preservation of Scripture if Psalm 12 really taught it. However, as a person who is responsible to exposit the text properly, and rightly divide or handle the word of truth, I cannot teach the KJVO view of Psalm 12. The Hebrew doesn't allow it. People like Matthew Henry who use the KJV but aren't KJVO don't teach it from this passage. It doesn't even fit the context.

Turning Pslam 12 into a prophecy about the production of the KJV is pretty bizarre.

God did preserve his word. He just didn't do it the way KJVO claims. He didn't teach it in Psalm 12 either.

Grace & peace to you, brothers.

Joe

threebigrocks
Nov 19th 2008, 01:39 PM
I don't want a "reasonable" translation, I want the perfect, incorruptible words of a perfect and Holy God. Please help me by telling me where I can find them.

Specifically please.

Rely on the Spirit to show the meaning of what God said, no matter what version you read. He would know. Do so with all versions, with the whole of scripture, and the truth will be known.

David Taylor
Nov 19th 2008, 01:52 PM
Which Spanish Bibles?

I do not know.

I do not know.

I do not know.

If you can't answer those questions about which Spanish bibles are 'God's pure words'; then what qualifies you to adamantly say the KJV is the only English bible that is 'God's pure words'?

tgallison
Nov 19th 2008, 02:04 PM
[quote=Uriel;1872629]But if two translation committees do their own work with proof that they have not copied some other translation then they should be able to translate from ancient manuscripts and possibly come up with the same translation without any lawsuit because they have not copied.

It is naive to think that a translation committee would not have read or be aware of what is in the other translations, and not to realize that a committee searches every word to see how it fits among all the other translations. Even if they agreed with almost every word of another translation, they would still alter the reading in words they agree with. They would search for other words that have almost the same meaning and insert them.

If you were to do an analysis of the new translations starting with the work of Westcott and Hort, you would see a progression of minor changes to major changes in how they read. As each new translation comes out, it becomes more of a balancing act. They use some of the words from this translation and some of the words from that translation. Every once in a while a verse will read word for word, usually it is a will known verse. The reason of course is not to offend those that have come to love that verse.


For example while I was writing a paper for a class and came up with the same idea that a scholar did in a book before reading the book. Since I read the book after I wrote that part of the paper or had the idea for it I still had to show that this other person agreed with what I had concluded but I did not have to give him credit for my idea (or our similar ideas). Instead I just had to show that he also agreed with me and said the same kinda thing. Now if I had not read his book then I would not have had to reference it in a foot note because I came up with the idea all on my own; but since I did I had to show that I had read it somewhere or that it had come up somewhere in my research. The same goes would most likely go for translation teams. Because they don't own the manuscripts they are borrowed or photographed and then translated. If one group comes up with the same translation for one passage then that is fine because it is what the manuscript says. But most teams will not do that because they think that certain words should be translated differently or they are using a different vocbulary all together.

Did your paper and the paper of the scholar read more than 10% different.

Nor would he have a reason to sue you, as I am sure there was no money involved.


For example the NRSV will use a high vocabulary than the NLT will because the NLT is meant for everyday reading or for an easier read; where as the NRSV is meant for a more educated reading and a more scholarly read. So the two teams will use different words that mean the same thing. So they are not doing verbal gymnastics to get different translations. And I am still not totally convinced that they have to make them 10% different.

I am wondering why the Holy Spirit didn't use a high vocabulary and a low vocabulary when he gave utterance to the writers of the Bible.

RabbiKnife
Nov 19th 2008, 03:05 PM
[quote]



I am wondering why the Holy Spirit didn't use a high vocabulary and a low vocabulary when he gave utterance to the writers of the Bible.

He did.

Look at the difference in the very nice, refined Greek in Romans and Hebrews and the much rougher, less refined Greek in Peter's writings.

Rufus_1611
Nov 19th 2008, 03:41 PM
If you can't answer those questions about which Spanish bibles are 'God's pure words'; then what qualifies you to adamantly say the KJV is the only English bible that is 'God's pure words'? With all respect Mr. Taylor, I do not intend to answer any more of your questions until you extend the courteousy of answering mine.

tgallison
Nov 19th 2008, 03:49 PM
[quote=tgallison;1873213]

He did.

Look at the difference in the very nice, refined Greek in Romans and Hebrews and the much rougher, less refined Greek in Peter's writings.

Was asking the question why God didn't give us two orginal autographs. One for the elite, and one for the less elite. Was not referring to the education of the writers.

RabbiKnife
Nov 19th 2008, 04:14 PM
But the result is the same. Romans is an autograph that contains nuance that only the elite Greek can carry.

Peter is an autograph that contains a much simpler expression of the Gospel.

tgallison
Nov 19th 2008, 05:25 PM
But the result is the same. Romans is an autograph that contains nuance that only the elite Greek can carry.

Peter is an autograph that contains a much simpler expression of the Gospel.

Perhaps you can give us a demonstration of a nuance in Romans that only the elite can understand.

RabbiKnife
Nov 19th 2008, 06:04 PM
You apparently misunderstood my post.

I said nothing about a nuance that only the elite could understand. Those are your words.

I said that the Greek of Romans is a very different level of Greek than that of Peter.

TrustingFollower
Nov 19th 2008, 07:50 PM
What I have yet to see in this thread or any other thread of this subject. Why are we discounting the Holy Ghost in all the translations. We all agree that God keeps his promise to preserve his word, but why push one translation over the others. We can deduce that with out someone to teach us the meaning of the scriptures we can not know what is being said. An example of what I am saying in found in Acts 8.

Acts 8

26 ¶But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, "Get up and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza." (This is a desert road.)
27 So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship,
28 and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot."
30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
31 And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

So who do we have today to guide us? We have teachers, preachers, evangelists, prophets, apostles all lead by the Holy Spirit, plus we have the Holy Spirit living in us. We only have to look at Jesus' words to know this.

John 14

25 ¶"These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you.
26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

So whether I read the KJV or the NASB the Holy Spirit is the one teaching me what the scriptures are saying. Without the Holy Spirit to teach the mysteries of the scriptures, the bible is just a book of stories. All the knowledge of the scriptures come from revelation from God through the Holy Spirit. So I don't think we can honestly say that because someone likes the KJV or the NASB that the Holy Spirit is lieing to one group or the other. Regardless of which translation just trust in God and listen the the Holy Spirit for your guidance and all will work to God's glory.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 20th 2008, 06:26 AM
What I have yet to see in this thread or any other thread of this subject. Why are we discounting the Holy Ghost in all the translations. We all agree that God keeps his promise to preserve his word, but why push one translation over the others. We can deduce that with out someone to teach us the meaning of the scriptures we can not know what is being said.This is an excellent point, thank you. I'm going to remember this for the next thread about KJV-onlyism. (Hopefully it won't happen for a long time. I do get so tired of the same old dead horses being dragged out and refusals of KJV-onlyers to answer points that are legitimately brought up by modern version readers.......)

Rufus_1611
Nov 20th 2008, 01:11 PM
What I have yet to see in this thread or any other thread of this subject. Why are we discounting the Holy Ghost in all the translations. How do you try the spirits if you don't have a rock to test them against? Btw...and I imagine you are aware but...the Holy Ghost is not found in the modern versions.



We all agree that God keeps his promise to preserve his word, but why push one translation over the others. Because one is above all others.


We can deduce that with out someone to teach us the meaning of the scriptures we can not know what is being said. An example of what I am saying in found in Acts 8.

Acts 8

26 ¶But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, "Get up and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza." (This is a desert road.)
27 So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship,
28 and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot."
30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
31 And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

So who do we have today to guide us? We have teachers, preachers, evangelists, prophets, apostles all lead by the Holy Spirit, Not all...some are wolves.



plus we have the Holy Spirit living in us. We only have to look at Jesus' words to know this.

John 14

25 ¶"These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you.
26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

So whether I read the KJV or the NASB the Holy Spirit is the one teaching me what the scriptures are saying. Without the Holy Spirit to teach the mysteries of the scriptures, the bible is just a book of stories. All the knowledge of the scriptures come from revelation from God through the Holy Spirit. So I don't think we can honestly say that because someone likes the KJV or the NASB that the Holy Spirit is lieing to one group or the other. It's not the Holy Spirit that is lying...it's another spirit.


Regardless of which translation just trust in God and listen the the Holy Spirit for your guidance and all will work to God's glory. There are many spirits and many speaking to the sheep, these spririts must be tried and they should be tried by the pure word of God. Without it, the voice one hears may not be from the source one thinks it is from.

TrustingFollower
Nov 20th 2008, 02:37 PM
How do you try the spirits if you don't have a rock to test them against? Btw...and I imagine you are aware but...the Holy Ghost is not found in the modern versions.
I see you picked up on that, did you also pick up on the fact I used Holy Spirit in the rest of the post?



Because one is above all others.
No version is above the other. God's word is a living word. God has not stopped talking to us, he is just talking to us in a different way today. God talks to us using the scriptures we have via revelation from His Holy Spirit.


Not all...some are wolves.


It's not the Holy Spirit that is lying...it's another spirit.

There are many spirits and many speaking to the sheep, these spririts must be tried and they should be tried by the pure word of God. Without it, the voice one hears may not be from the source one thinks it is from.

The very same Spirit that called you and I to God is the very same Spirit that is dwelling in you and I and teaching us. I have The Holy Spirit living in me now so how could an evil spirit also live in me. The Holy Spirit is God and He will not allow an evil spirit to dwell with Him. God casts out the evil spirits in true believers the same way he cast Satan and his angels out of heaven. A house divided on itself can not stand.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 20th 2008, 03:07 PM
How do you try the spirits if you don't have a rock to test them against? Btw...and I imagine you are aware but...the Holy Ghost is not found in the modern versions. I’m glad, because I hate holy haunted houses.
Because one is above all others.The NIV/TNIV. :yes:
Not all...some are wolves. Like KJV-onlyers.
It's not the Holy Spirit that is lying...it's another spirit.I will pray that you are soon freed from your KJV-only bondage.
There are many spirits and many speaking to the sheep, these spririts must be tried and they should be tried by the pure word of God. That is, the pure Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek word of God without extra verses added in.
Without it, the voice one hears may not be from the source one thinks it is from.You should listen to your own advice.

Rufus_1611
Nov 20th 2008, 03:38 PM
I’m glad, because I hate holy haunted houses. Quite the dangerous thing to mock. I take it you don't believe in ghosts?


The NIV/TNIV. :yes:



Like KJV-onlyers. That's not very nice.


I will pray that you are soon freed from your KJV-only bondage. Thank you for your prayers.



That is, the pure Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek word of God without extra verses added in.You should listen to your own advice.

Rufus_1611
Nov 20th 2008, 03:39 PM
I see you picked up on that, did you also pick up on the fact I used Holy Spirit in the rest of the post? I did.



No version is above the other. God's word is a living word. God has not stopped talking to us, he is just talking to us in a different way today. God talks to us using the scriptures we have via revelation from His Holy Spirit.



The very same Spirit that called you and I to God is the very same Spirit that is dwelling in you and I and teaching us. I have The Holy Spirit living in me now so how could an evil spirit also live in me. The Holy Spirit is God and He will not allow an evil spirit to dwell with Him. God casts out the evil spirits in true believers the same way he cast Satan and his angels out of heaven. A house divided on itself can not stand.


................

daughter
Nov 20th 2008, 03:53 PM
I am sorry if this has already been addressed somewhere in this long thread... but may I ask which of the two original 1611 folios represents the "pure words of God." My preferred translation of the Bible is the KJV, but I don't understand how people can believe that there is some "pure" form of it which represents God's final word. For example, I sneeze, I don't "neeze", and when I say, "please sir, can I have some more" I say "more", rather than "moe" or "mo."

There are many inconsistencies and variances between the two copies that we have from 1611. In a way, this is a great thing, because the fact that these two documents stand as witnesses to the first attempt to translate the whole Bible while having differences should prevent us from setting up some supposedly "pure" version as a golden calf.

That's the advice of a KJV lover anyway. I think God allowed the mistakes in the two texts to stand for that very reason... that we put our trust in His Holy Spirit to interpret the text, not some construct of man.

HisLeast
Nov 20th 2008, 03:58 PM
If the 1611 KJV is the only inerrant word of God... could someone please suggest an English translation of it that my wife could read?

Dragonfighter1
Nov 20th 2008, 04:02 PM
If the 1611 KJV is the only inerrant word of God... could someone please suggest an English translation of it that my wife could read?
:rofl::lol::rofl::lol::rofl:Naughty naughty..... (Good but naughty)

Dragonfighter1
Nov 20th 2008, 04:06 PM
So hey, now we can solve another problem with the Bible. For centuries we have not known who wrote the book of Hebrews. But hey, since the KJV translaters said it was Paul then, great! Why listen to all the other scholars who say it can't be. After all they are just highly educated scholars..not spiritually guided roman catholic trained lackies of the King of England.

TrustingFollower
Nov 20th 2008, 04:09 PM
If the 1611 KJV is the only inerrant word of God... could someone please suggest an English translation of it that my wife could read?
As you can see from my above posts I do not hold to the KJV only stance so I would suggest the new ESV study bible for your wife. Very good translation and lots of maps, illustrations and study notes to help her along. Below is a like to the website on the particular bible.

http://www.esvstudybible.org/

HisLeast
Nov 20th 2008, 04:21 PM
As you can see from my above posts I do not hold to the KJV only stance so I would suggest the new ESV study bible for your wife. Very good translation and lots of maps, illustrations and study notes to help her along. Below is a like to the website on the particular bible.

http://www.esvstudybible.org/

The question was not directed to moderates, but to the staunch KJV only proponent. I want them to know that there really are people incapable of gleaning meaning from old English.

Rufus_1611
Nov 20th 2008, 04:22 PM
The question was not directed to moderates, but to the staunch KJV only proponent. I want them to know that there really are people incapable of gleaning meaning from old English. The AV is not written in old English so that shouldn't be a factor.

TrustingFollower
Nov 20th 2008, 04:31 PM
The question was not directed to moderates, but to the staunch KJV only proponent. I want them to know that there really are people incapable of gleaning meaning from old English.
Well chock this up as my naive side coming out. :lol:

HisLeast
Nov 20th 2008, 04:33 PM
Well chock this up as my naive side coming out. :lol:
The green text username means we never hold it against you. ;)

HisLeast
Nov 20th 2008, 04:37 PM
The AV is not written in old English so that shouldn't be a factor.

Whatever dialect it was written in.... is there an English translation of it my wife can read?

daughter
Nov 20th 2008, 04:47 PM
NKJV (New King James Version) is good, but of the modern translations, I really think that English Standard Version is the most outstanding. Holman's is also good, but ESV pips it to the post.

HisLeast
Nov 20th 2008, 05:03 PM
NKJV (New King James Version) is good, but of the modern translations, I really think that English Standard Version is the most outstanding. Holman's is also good, but ESV pips it to the post.

Hmmm... well I want something that's heresy free so I don't accidentally doom her to an eternity of hellfire.

Rufus_1611
Nov 20th 2008, 05:43 PM
Whatever dialect it was written in.... is there an English translation of it my wife can read? Does your wife understand English at a 6th grade level?

Rufus_1611
Nov 20th 2008, 05:47 PM
Would you like a one way ticket to here so you can ask that to my face? If I offended you, my apologies. I don't know your wife and I don't know you (not sure why you are bringing your wife into this in the first place). The Authorized Version of the Holy Bible, by commonly accepted measuring standards, is written at a 6th grade level. If anyone understands English at this level they can understand the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.

Dragonfighter1
Nov 20th 2008, 05:49 PM
Kudos to both of you for calming down what could have become a "big-nasty".

DF

daughter
Nov 20th 2008, 05:59 PM
Can I just ask people to calm down here?

The King James Version is a fine translation (my personal favourite for what it is worth.) It is also in a dialect of English which nobody speaks anymore, and it is understandable that many people feel uncomfortable using it for this reason.

I've read texts that would technically pass for "sixth grade" simplicity, but which I found difficult because they were in various different dialects to which I was not accustomed. If a Rastafarian were to infer from my problems with his dialect that I was illiterate, he would obviously be wrong.

It should be obvious by now that nobody is going to agree on this issue, and it would be the Christian (and adult) thing to simply accept that fact and move on.

HisLeast
Nov 20th 2008, 06:03 PM
If I offended you, my apologies. I don't know your wife and I don't know you (not sure why you are bringing your wife into this in the first place).
If the 1611 KJV is the only place she can find the pure word of God, then she is automatically in this discussion by being completely unfamiliar with that dead dialect. While much of the text is recognizable as English, it simply doesn't read or transfer meaning as well as it did four hundred years ago. People like my wife MUST be in these conversations because the die-hard KJV-only-ist either demands they learn a new language, or damns them for reading heresy.


The Authorized Version of the Holy Bible, by commonly accepted measuring standards, is written at a 6th grade level. If anyone understands English at this level they can understand the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.
Unless you're talking about an effort to translate the 1611 text into a something readable by someone born in the past 100 years, I'm not sure what "authorized version" means. Is it just another way of saying 1611 KJV? If so, how did those in 1611 gauge anything for a 6th grade level of education four hundred years later.

Literalist-Luke
Nov 20th 2008, 07:28 PM
OK, I'm outta here.

Rufus_1611
Nov 20th 2008, 07:31 PM
If the 1611 KJV is the only place she can find the pure word of God, then she is automatically in this discussion by being completely unfamiliar with that dead dialect. It remains alive in the living Word of God.


While much of the text is recognizable as English, it simply doesn't read or transfer meaning as well as it did four hundred years ago. It has not changed. It reads and transfers meaning the same way it did 400 years ago.


People like my wife MUST be in these conversations because the die-hard KJV-only-ist either demands they learn a new language, or damns them for reading heresy. Please cite the post where someone spoke of your wife's or anyone else's damnation. This is not a salvation discussion. People are saved by believing the gospel, no one has stated otherwise.



Unless you're talking about an effort to translate the 1611 text into a something readable by someone born in the past 100 years, I'm not sure what "authorized version" means. The Authorized Version of the Holy Bible is the 7th of 7 English translations that was Authorized by the word of a King and/or authorized by the King of Kings.


"Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" - Ecclesiastes 8:4



Is it just another way of saying 1611 KJV? Yes.



If so, how did those in 1611 gauge anything for a 6th grade level of education four hundred years later. It has been contemporarily identified as being written in the sixth grade language. I haven't considered it, but I doubt they had something as abominable as public schools in 1611 England.

daughter
Nov 20th 2008, 07:45 PM
Rufus, I'm glad that you agree that this is not a salvific issue, and I agree... they had nothing as abominable as our modern school systems in 1611! (Mind you, they were still stuffing children up chimneys back then...)

HisLeast
Nov 20th 2008, 07:48 PM
Sorry, and I'm not asking this to be a jerk, but how could it not be a salvation issue if the position is "this version which you can't make sense of contains the gospel in its purest forms, where as these other versions are tainted"?

daughter
Nov 20th 2008, 08:04 PM
I think because the gospel is so simple that a child can understand it.

Here's an example. The day after my son was saved, my husband asked him, "how do you know there's a God? You can't see Him?"

My son, ten at the time, said, "you can't see the wind either, but you know it's there."

"Yes," said my husband, "but you can see what the wind does, you can see it's affect on things."

"Same thing with God. You don't need to see something to know it's there. You don't know where the wind comes from or where it's going to, but there it is. You know there's a wind. I know there's a God."

Interesting thing... less than twenty four hours earlier my son was an athiest, and when he told this story (which if you remembered Jesus shared with Nicodemus) he'd never read a word of the gospels.

So how did he know? He'd not read any bible, let alone KJV.

He knew, because God revealed it to Him.

It's God who opens the scripture, not a translation, no matter how beautiful and graceful.

So, while Rufus is entitled to his view of the standing of KJV, I think he'd agree with all of us that the Holy Spirit interprets Scripture. Whether we have the exact pure words in front of us or not.

The conversation I recounted above is just one example of the Holy Spirit teaching a little saint, and I'm sure we all know many.

Rufus_1611
Nov 20th 2008, 08:05 PM
Sorry, and I'm not asking this to be a jerk, but how could it not be a salvation issue if the position is "this version which you can't make sense of contains the gospel in its purest forms, where as these other versions are tainted"? Who are you quoting?

TrustingFollower
Nov 20th 2008, 11:13 PM
I am closing this thread for the better of the brotherhood as a whole. There is no need for believers to fight and bicker like heathens over the different translations of God's word. Rather than tearing each other down we need to start living what is in God's word and encourage each other and show brotherly love.