Kjo

UBERROGO · Jan 5, 2007

BigChrisfilm said:
Here we go,

6.4 a. Postings in the Congregation category forums are restricted to those of that denomination except for posts for fellowship and earnest questions.
http://www.christianforums.com/rules

To explain better:
Non-Baptist members (eg. Catholic,Charasmatic, Weselyan, Lutheran, etc... members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Baptistdoctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Baptist members. Any debate posts by Non-Baptist members will be deleted or moved to the appropriate forum. In other words, only Baptist/Anabaptist members can debate here.

1. I wasnt debating. In fact I agreed to liking the KJV.

2. Are you allowed to even start a thread here considering you dont have baptist anywhere in your profile?

BigChrisfilm · Jan 5, 2007

UBERROGO said:
Either Peter Ruckman or Samuel Gipp said that it applies to people of all languages, i.e. the Japaneese, Chineese, Polish, etc all need to learn English so they can read the KJV.

Maybe it is just you (and a few others) who consider it an English only thing.

Looks like you were starting a debate right there. And I am Baptist, I just don't have the Baptist logo.

JacobHall86 · Jan 5, 2007

BigChrisfilm said:
Seriously, are you even allow to be in here debating with me? Isn't this a Baptist only section?

He isnt debating you, since there is no point or counter point, and even if it was he is doing it in my stead, i am at work on my pda unable to do as much as I would like and he is filling in for me. and I am most certainly a Baptist.

UBERROGO · Jan 5, 2007

JacobHall86 said:
He isnt debating you, since there is no point or counter point, and even if it was he is doing it in my stead, i am at work on my pda unable to do as much as I would like and he is filling in for me. and I am most certainly a Baptist.

*high fives*

BigChrisfilm said:
Looks like you were starting a debate right there. And I am Baptist, I just don't have the Baptist logo.

No I am just stating a fact from a leading proponent of the KJVO movement. It was for your benefit. If you didnt agree then I wasnt going to say anything.

Logos1560 · Jan 5, 2007

BigChrisfilm said:
I forgot about those, I will get back to them later

Did you forget about them again today?

TwinCrier · Jan 5, 2007

For the benfit og KJV critics, all my further posts on the subject will be in the original Greek:
ΕΝΤΑΞΕΙ, τελειώστε αυτό αμέσως. Εάν το KJV είναι τόσο καλό δεδομένου ότι οποιοδήποτε άλλοδήποτε βιβλίο που καλείται "Βίβλο" έπειτα δεν υπάρχει κανένας λόγος που ανατρέπεται ότι οι άνθρωποι KJVO θεωρούν το KJV. Εάν το KJV είναι κατώτερο από μια άλλη μετάφραση, παρακαλώ ταχυδρομήστε ακριβώς τι εκείνη η μετάφραση είναι. Εάν δεν μιλάτε τα αγγλικά έπειτα παρακαλώ αφήστε το Θεό να σας κατευθύνει στην κατάλληλη Βίβλο.

Logos1560 · Jan 5, 2007

TwinCrier, you will need Hebrew, not Greek for these verses.

Unger's Bible Dictionary maintained that nehosheth [the same Hebrew word as at Jer. 15:12] "should clearly be rendered copper in Deuteronomy 8:9 and Job 28:2" (p. 736). This same source also noted: "As applied to mining, it, of course means copper (Deut. 8:9; Job 28:2)" (p. 734). The KJV reads: "Out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass" (Deut. 8:9). McClintock also confirmed that "a simple metal was obviously intended as we see from Deuteronomy 8:9 and Job 28:2" (Cyclopaedia, I, p. 878). Brass is not a simple metal that can be found naturally in the ground since it is a factitious or artificial metal--an alloy or compound made by men. In his commentary, Adam Clarke observed: "As there is no such thing in nature as a brass mine, the word nechosheth should be translated copper" (I, p. 762). Concerning Deuteronomy 8:9, Jamieson and Faussets Commentary noted: not the alloy brass, but the ore of copper (p. 127). Concerning this same verse, Wright and Chadbourne also confirmed that the phrase refers to copper and its mining (Gems and Minerals, p. 47). In the volume on 1 Samuel in The Cambridge Bible for Schools, A. F. Kirkpatrick wrote that the word translated brass means copper in such passages as Deuteronomy 8:9, where a natural metal is spoken of (p. 154). The Davis Dictionary of the Bible asserted that "copper was smelted from the ore dug from the ground (Deut. 8:9; Job 28:2) (p. 107). Fairbairns Bible Encyclopedia asserted that when reference is made to the ore, or to the metal in its original state, not brass, but copper is the word that should be employed (II, p. 58). Concerning Deuteronomy 8:9 and Job 28:2, the Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary maintained that in both these cases the correct translation is copper, for brass is a man-made alloy of chiefly copper and zinc (p. 540).

TwinCrier · Jan 5, 2007

http://www.learnthebible.org/straining-at-brass.htm

BereanTodd · Jan 5, 2007

BigChrisfilm said:
Look dude, do you believe God perserved a perfect copy of his Word or not?

Why did God wait 1600 years to give us the KJV?

If He was going to give us a perfect English version, why did He not do it with the countless translations before the KJV? Why did He allow the other "wrong" translations first? Did He want people misled for 100+ years?

And I'm still waiting for answers to my points from page 1 of this thread, especially the 2 points below:

BereanTodd said:
Reasons why the KJV is not the best translation:
...
5. Printing errors in it that have never been corrected (one example being "..strain at a gnat.." (Mt.23:24). This should be "..strain out a gnat.." (Gk. diulivzonto", filtering out).

6.
The following is a list of some terms and passages in the AV which are found in no Greek manuscripts at all.

A. Acts 9: 5,6: "..it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him" (Erasmus honestly admitted in the notes accompanying his Greek NT that he took the words from the parallel passage in Acts 26:14, and included them in his GNT because they were in the Vulgate.)
B. Col. 1:14: "..through his blood.."
C. Rev. 5:14: "..him that liveth for ever and ever."
D. Rev. 17:4: "..full of abominations and filthiness.." The Greek term for "filthiness" (ajkaqavrthto") used in this verse in the KJV, does not exist in the Greek language.

Logos1560 · Jan 5, 2007

Were the early English translators influenced by the Latin Vulgate at Esther 1:6? Moldenke pointed out: "The Hebrew word for 'cotton' is karpas. This word appears in the original of the passage cited above [Esther 1:5-6], but was mistranslated as 'green' in the King James, Leeser, and Douay versions" (Plants of the Bible, p. 109). Moldenke added: "The Vulgate rendered the 'carpas' of the Esther reference as 'carbasini coloris,' implying that a color, not a material was intended. This is doubtless the basis of the Authorized and Douay versions' translation of 'green'" (p. 110). Likely influenced by the same source, the Geneva and Bishops Bibles also had "green" while the 1535 Coverdale's Bible has "red."

The Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible noted that "the 'green' of the KJV in Esther 1:6 is undoubtedly a reference to the Levant cotton, Gossypium herbaceum" (IV, p. 1709). H. B. Tristram maintained that carpas should be rendered, not green, but cotton (Natural History, p. 440). The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia stated that the Hebrew karpas is from the Persian kirpas and the Sanskrit karpasa, the cotton plant (p. 723). In his book also entitled Plants of the Bible, Michael Zohary maintained that "cotton, the Hebrew karpas, is mentioned" at Esther 1:6 (p. 79). Young's Analytical Concordance rendered karpas as "cotton" (p. 437). Green's Concise Lexicon defined it as "fine linen, cotton cloth" (p. 116). Wilson's O. T. Word Studies gave the following definition: "fine white linen or cotton cloth" (p. 201). The Encyclopaedia Judaica noted that cotton is "mentioned under the name karpas (derived from the Sanskrit karpasa) in the book of Esther" (Vol. 5, p. 992). The 1917 English translation of the Masoretic text by Jews translated the beginning of verse 6 of Esther chapter one as follows: "there were hangings of white, fine cotton, and blue." The 1842 revision of the KJV has "white cotton" at Esther 1:6.

BigChrisfilm · Jan 5, 2007

You guys just won't let this go will you.

BereanTodd · Jan 5, 2007

BigChrisfilm said:
You guys just won't let this go will you.

Why can't you answer the questions? Are you affraid to confront your beliefs?

BigChrisfilm · Jan 5, 2007

BereanTodd said:
Why can't you answer the questions? Are you affraid to confront your beliefs?

Because you don't really want an answer, you just want to argue, and be right.

TwinCrier · Jan 5, 2007

BereanTodd said:
Why did God wait 1600 years to give us the KJV?

If He was going to give us a perfect English version, why did He not do it with the countless translations before the KJV? Why did He allow the other "wrong" translations first? Did He want people misled for 100+ years?

And I'm still waiting for answers to my points from page 1 of this thread, especially the 2 points below:

It made little sense to allow the scripture to be translated into a language that didn't exist yet. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me which version of the bible I should be using if not the KJV.

BigChrisfilm · Jan 5, 2007

TwinCrier said:
It made little sense to allow the scripture to be translated into a language that didn't exist yet. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me which version of the bible I should be using if not the KJV.

So far it seems that our request for others to have to learn English, unacceptable, but we all have to learn Hebrew and Greek, or we can't read the REAL Bible. That is what they are saying, makes no sense though.

BigChrisfilm · Jan 5, 2007

I guess God wasn't smart enough to know that in 1611, we would need a new translation of the Bible, in the new World language. He had such a good track record before all that too!

BereanTodd · Jan 5, 2007

TwinCrier said:
It made little sense to allow the scripture to be translated into a language that didn't exist yet.

You miss my point. The KJV was NOT the first English language version. You had the Wycliffe (1380s), the Tyndale (1523), the "Great" or Coverdale Bible (1539), Matthew's Bible (1537?), Taverner's Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishop's Bible (1568), Douai-Rheims Bible (NT in 1582, old in 1609).

That's at least 8 English language versions BEFORE the KJV, starting centuries before the KJV was written. If God wanted the perfect English language version, why did He wait until 1611 (which had many errors and had to be revised in the 18th century, the revised edition being what 99% of KJVs today are) to do it?

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me which version of the bible I should be using if not the KJV.

I don't care what you use. Use the KJV, there's nothing wrong with it, it's just not perfect. If you want to know what the most accurate is, it depends on your view of translation, but in order it is either:

NASB-NKJV-KJV or else
NKJV-NASB-KJV.

I personally consider the first order to be more accurate, though I am moving more towards the NKJV lately. I could be swayed, we'll see.

BereanTodd · Jan 5, 2007

BigChrisfilm said:
I guess God wasn't smart enough to know that in 1611, we would need a new translation of the Bible, in the new World language. He had such a good track record before all that too!

Did God not know that 100 years earlier when English language versions started coming out all over the place? Why did He allow people to be lost in darkness for 100 years??

BereanTodd · Jan 5, 2007

BigChrisfilm said:
Because you don't really want an answer, you just want to argue, and be right.

No, Dean and I have both pointed out translation errors, and I have pointed out multiple passages for which there is NO GREEK MANUSCRIPT. I want your answer. You claim your version is perfect, we have shown errors, I want to know how you can account for both to be right.

While we're at it, if the 1611 was so perfect and God-inspired, why was it so poor that it had to be seriously revised in the 1700s, the revision being what you read today?

BigChrisfilm · Jan 5, 2007

BereanTodd said:
You miss my point. The KJV was NOT the first English language version. You had the Wycliffe (1380s), the Tyndale (1523), the "Great" or Coverdale Bible (1539), Matthew's Bible (1537?), Taverner's Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishop's Bible (1568), Douai-Rheims Bible (NT in 1582, old in 1609).

That's at least 8 English language versions BEFORE the KJV, starting centuries before the KJV was written. If God wanted the perfect English language version, why did He wait until 1611 (which had many errors and had to be revised in the 18th century, the revised edition being what 99% of KJVs today are) to do it?

I don't care what you use. Use the KJV, there's nothing wrong with it, it's just not perfect. If you want to know what the most accurate is, it depends on your view of translation, but in order it is either:

NASB-NKJV-KJV or else
NKJV-NASB-KJV.

I personally consider the first order to be more accurate, though I am moving more towards the NKJV lately. I could be swayed, we'll see.

Ok, I want a perfect Bible, so which one is it? I want you to tell me which Bible is perfect. Go, on, give it to me.

Kjo

Senior Member

Contributor

Calvin is 500 years old, Calvinism is eternal!

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Well-Known Member

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Missionary Heart

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Missionary Heart

Contributor

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Contributor

Contributor

Missionary Heart

Missionary Heart

Missionary Heart

Contributor

Similar threads