Do you disgree with the statement that the Johannine Comma is an addition? Or that the KJV is not perfect?
Originally Posted by blueanjel
if every word is important then how can we justify the changing of them
The English Language has changed over the last 400 years. It is the responsibility of the body of Christ to make sure that we have quality translations that are also readable so that people are not given the wrong impression about what the Bible says. There are various arguments that I've heard hardline unbelievers make that are entirely based on the archaic language of the King James. The 400 year old phrase appears to say X to the modern day reader, but it actually means Y. Modern translations don't have this problem. Now granted, I think there are too many modern translations and re-translations, but it doesn't mean that we should not have had a newer, accurate, and readable translation.
Originally Posted by blueanjel
when you go to school does everyone in class get a different text book? how could we all come to the same understandings if we all use different text books?
With good translations, there won't be different understandings of the cardinal Christian truths. I have heard many arguments against the newer translations, claiming that they are more lenient to this sin or how they somehow deny the divinity of Christ or whatever, and none of them hold water.
Originally Posted by blueanjel
we need to be using the correct text book, and that is the 1611 KJV...it has been preserved for us to 400 years, despite all efforts to discredit and destroy it
1. Do you have an actual 1611 KJV, or is it the more common 1769 edit by Benjamin Blaney?
2. You seem to be saying that people who like newer translations are out to destroy or discredit the KJV. This isn't really true. Most Christians aren't anti-KJV. They are open to other translations which are more readable and which are at least as accurate. However, the KJV-onlyists are anti-many of the Bible we like to read, even though they give the same message. It's nuts.
Originally Posted by blueanjel
nice signature btw
Thank you.
__________________ Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His words, or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
- Proverbs 30:5-6
Sovereignty is not racism.
Last edited by twistedsketch; 16th October 2009 at 08:06 AM.
Each and every translation from the original languages share equal status as translated texts. Some are better than others, but they're ALL translations.
Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek were all common languages of their day, that is, the languages spoken by the common people in everyday life. These are the languages that God chose to record his revealed Word.
If KJV-onlyists spoke 1611 English at home, at school and play (and work) then the KJV would be appropriate. They don't.
Every KJV pastor I've ever heard explains difficult KJV passages with "that's Bible language for ..." or "in today's language we would say ..." and thus completely negates their argument in favor of the KJV only. The result is in fact a retranslation performed by a person with very minimal education and training versus the translators of modern versions who are very highly educated and have spent a lifetime translating scripture from the original languages.
When pastors have to reinterpret from 1611 English to 21st Century English so their congregations can understand it, it opens the door to all kinds of errors and abuses.
I am opposed to any translation program that has as a goal anything other than accurately rendering the original language into whatever vernacular it is into which they're translating. A theological or political bias in a translation will only serve to promote more division, or else serve to cloud the Truth that is present in those texts. I suppose that one could classify me as "conservative", but I believe that the Scriptures are conservative enough without ammending them.
__________________ If we can't die for each other, we can at least not be dead to each other.
-Anglian
I am opposed to any translation program that has as a goal anything other than accurately rendering the original language into whatever vernacular it is into which they're translating. A theological or political bias in a translation will only serve to promote more division, or else serve to cloud the Truth that is present in those texts. I suppose that one could classify me as "conservative", but I believe that the Scriptures are conservative enough without ammending them.
I ran into this through another thread on the site, and I was rather shocked. This group suggests that all modern translations of the Bible have liberal bias, and they are trying to pull together a truly "conservative" translation.
Now I will grant you that there are some translations out there that definitely have a liberal bias, especially when you get into issues of gender inclusivity and such. Most of them tend to be dynamic equivalence translations (thought for thought) rather than formal equivalence (word for word). And if that's important to you (as it probably is for most of us in this forum) you can choose other, more "literal" translations.
But these folks are going a step farther, and critiquing specific phrases (Father, forgive them) and parables (woman caught in adultery) and saying that because they are too liberal, or are "twisted" by liberal Christians, that they should be removed.
Does anyone know anything more about this project? I'm just going by what I read on their main page (which I link above), and I'm pretty appalled by the idea. Am I missing something?
That's borderline heresy and blasphemy in my opinion as the Lord as said that He would remove from the Book of Life anyone who removed a word from the Bible. As for the book burning church they are a bunch of kooks who wants to among other things restore the Prohibition (remember how well it worked and despite the fact that the Bible is full of mentions of alcohol and while God dislikes drunkeness He certainly allows moderate alcohol drinking, indeed Jesus turned water to wine as one of His miracles!) and thinks Sarah Palin's church is heretical just not for using the "right" Bible version.
Originally Posted by blueanjel
really sad to see christians want to change God's preserved word and even sadder to see them mock the KJV, which is His preserved word
If this was 1600 I assume reactionary Catholics would say the exact same thing directed against the KJV and if you substitute Latin version for the KJV. Also Chick.Com is full of rabid and poorly researched conspiracy theories and has probably turned away more people from Christ then for HIm.
i disagree, if every word is important then how can we justify the changing of them
God has preserved His word for us today in the language of modern times, He is very capable of doing so, and has
when you go to school does everyone in class get a different text book? how could we all come to the same understandings if we all use different text books?
in order for us all to come to the correct understandings of what the translators meant and to compare texts throughout, we need to be using the correct text book, and that is the 1611 KJV...it has been preserved for us to 400 years, despite all efforts to discredit and destroy it
nice signature btw
The KJV is just a translation, not the translation. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. For one word in a language, it can have several different words that are similiar to it in another. The translated word is picked because it is closest to the word in that particular context. You have more issues when it comes to the whole sentence and passage. That is why some translations focus more on getting word per word and others on the true meaning of the sentence itself.
well i guess then with every new generation we will need to change the scriptures to keep up with 'our' modern understanding of words instead of changing our understanding to match His Words...it is for this reason that i like to use the Websters 1828 dictionary when studying the KJV...it is more in tune with the true meanings of the KJV translators and helps so much in our understanding of what was being conveyed to us by the translators of that time...try it sometime and you might be very surprised and blessed
Noah Webster, the Father of American Christian education, wrote the first American dictionary and established a system of rules to govern spelling, grammar, and reading. This master linguist understood the power of words, their definitions, and the need for precise word usage in communication to maintain independence. Webster used the Bible as the foundation for his definitions.
This standard reference tool will greatly assist students of all ages in their studies.
No other dictionary compares with the Webster's 1828 dictionary. The English language has changed again and again and in many instances has become corrupt. The American Dictionary of the English Language is based upon God's written word, for Noah Webster used the Bible as the foundation for his definitions. This standard reference tool will greatly assist students of all ages in their studies. From American History to literature, from science to the Word of God, this dictionary is a necessity. For homeschoolers as well as avid Bible students it is easy, fast, and sophisticated.
Webster considered "education useless without the Bible." And as a result he utilized God's written word as a key to the meaning of words. This is the reason, the Webster 1828 is one of the most important reprint of the twentieth century, the essential tool of education for Christians. Compare definitions of such words as education, marriage, truth, and many more. Compare a few of these definitions in the chart below, you will be amazed to discover the secularization of our modern English language. Two Dictionaries. Two Definitions. Which Dictionary is on Your Shelf?
Search, Browse, and Study this dictionary to learn the language of the early American, Christian language.
do we limit God? is He not capable of preserving His word the way that He chooses to do it?
there are so many reasons why we should stick with the one that has been preserved for us for the past 400 years and not put our trust in the newer 'improved' translations
Location: dwelling in the secret place of the Almighty - ps.91
Posts: 37
Blessings: 34,590
My Mood
Reps: 60,927,701,606,116 (power: 60,927,701,607)
Originally Posted by CantateDomino
/Sigh
Each and every translation from the original languages share equal status as translated texts. Some are better than others, but they're ALL translations.
Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek were all common languages of their day, that is, the languages spoken by the common people in everyday life. These are the languages that God chose to record his revealed Word.
If KJV-onlyists spoke 1611 English at home, at school and play (and work) then the KJV would be appropriate. They don't.
Every KJV pastor I've ever heard explains difficult KJV passages with "that's Bible language for ..." or "in today's language we would say ..." and thus completely negates their argument in favor of the KJV only. The result is in fact a retranslation performed by a person with very minimal education and training versus the translators of modern versions who are very highly educated and have spent a lifetime translating scripture from the original languages.
When pastors have to reinterpret from 1611 English to 21st Century English so their congregations can understand it, it opens the door to all kinds of errors and abuses.
in agreement.
the more modern translations .. which in 1611 was the KJV.. are helpful in using today's language in better understanding what was so clear to those in that day.
other Bibles before 1611 were translated before there was a standard way of spelling words. the KJV became the standard of proper spelling as well as proper morals.
__________________
Ps. 16:11, O Hashem, you will show me the way of life, granting me the joy of your presence and the pleasures of living with you forever.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by GrowingInGrace; 25th October 2009 at 08:58 PM.
Reason: more thoughts
For instance on using the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, what about of the thousands upon thousands of new words in English that has been coined since 1828? A 181 years has passed and technology, society, and the world has gone many dramatic advancements and changes; for instance you will not find the word "helicopter" in the Webster's. I do agree the 1828 Webster's may have less "poltically correct" and more "true" definitions but I think it'd be best if you used a modern dictionary and the Webster's both of which are available on the Internet.
Linear Mode
