This whole thread is about an issue that is worthless to fight over. "Our KJV is the ONLY Bible. (laughs) Pass me the caviar Winston. Pull the horses around would you Jeeves and fix me a drink?"
Upvote
0
Authorised King James Version
- Thread starter Thunderchild
- Start date
- Status
Didaskomenos
Voiced Bilabial Spirant
"Quite so, sir. Jolly good thinking. Rum thing about those hapless chaps reading their New Age Satanic handbooks. I'm sorry? Quite right again, although I don't think they realize we're not reading them. Bully genius on your part, I say sir, and no mistake, sir."
Upvote
0
The charge that King James Bible believers are a cult is similar to the charge that they worship the Bible. It is a result of the same frustration and born of the same malice. Sadly, when facts do not prove them right, character assassination is in order.
Cults are somewhat difficult to define, although there are two outstanding characteristics evident in all cults.
First, a cult has a central body that makes decisions for all of its disciples. Most King James Bible believers are fiercely independent and many times disagree about other doctrines, even with one another. Their only central authority is the Bible, not a college or university.
Secondly, most cults fear that their disciples will investigate their opposition's beliefs and then be converted by the truth. Therefore they make strict rules disallowing books and materials that disagree with their doctrine.
Again, since the facts support the Authorized Version, King James Bible believers are not afraid to study the charges of their critics.
It makes one wonder just who is the "cult" and who isn't.
...............................................
Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.
First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.
Cults are somewhat difficult to define, although there are two outstanding characteristics evident in all cults.
First, a cult has a central body that makes decisions for all of its disciples. Most King James Bible believers are fiercely independent and many times disagree about other doctrines, even with one another. Their only central authority is the Bible, not a college or university.
Secondly, most cults fear that their disciples will investigate their opposition's beliefs and then be converted by the truth. Therefore they make strict rules disallowing books and materials that disagree with their doctrine.
Again, since the facts support the Authorized Version, King James Bible believers are not afraid to study the charges of their critics.
It makes one wonder just who is the "cult" and who isn't.
...............................................
Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.
First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.
Upvote
0
In the 20th and 21st centuries
Reading the AKJV with a twentieth century lexicon can lead to all manner of misunderstandings.
The Greek word "inappropriate contenteia," translated as "fornications," covers such matters as sex with animals, homosexuality (male or female), incest and a range of other less than savoury practices. So too, in the 17th century, "fornication" - it did not have the narrow definition that currently applies. From "inappropriate contenteia" we derive the English word, inappropriate contentography.
In the 17th Century fornication had a broader meaning. As shown by the fact that there wasn't just ONE form of fornication - as is readily shown by the fact that the AKJV makes reference to fornications. Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
Reading the AKJV with a twentieth century lexicon can lead to all manner of misunderstandings.
The Greek word "inappropriate contenteia," translated as "fornications," covers such matters as sex with animals, homosexuality (male or female), incest and a range of other less than savoury practices. So too, in the 17th century, "fornication" - it did not have the narrow definition that currently applies. From "inappropriate contenteia" we derive the English word, inappropriate contentography.
Upvote
0
The original reason for producing the AKJV?
What did the original translators of the AKJV declare regarding their own work?
What did the original translators say of the other English versions of the Bible then available?
What did the original translators of the AKJV declare regarding their own work?
What did the original translators say of the other English versions of the Bible then available?
The ORIGINAL TRANSLATORS of the the AKJV acknowledged that FAULTY translations were RAISED UP OF GOD.
Upvote
0
Does this mean that, because they did not claim God's hand in translating the Scripture that He could not be or was not in control of their commission? For the answer we must look to the Bible, our final authority in all matters of faith and practice .
When John the Baptist was accosted by the Levites in John chapter one and asked if he was Elijah (John 1:21) he answered that he was not Elijah. Yet in Matthew chapters 11:7-14 and 17:10-13 Jesus Christ plainly stated that John was Elijah.
Did John the Baptist lie? No. Did Jesus Christ lie? Of course not. The answer is very simply that John was Elijah but he didn't know it! Thus we see from our Bible example that a man can have God working through him and not know it. Likewise, God could easily have divinely directed the King James translators without their active knowledge.
In spite of their (translators of the Authorized Version) outstanding character, they never claimed divine inspiration. (A claim which, if they had made, would over joy their detractors as evidence of a prideful spirit.)
When John the Baptist was accosted by the Levites in John chapter one and asked if he was Elijah (John 1:21) he answered that he was not Elijah. Yet in Matthew chapters 11:7-14 and 17:10-13 Jesus Christ plainly stated that John was Elijah.
Did John the Baptist lie? No. Did Jesus Christ lie? Of course not. The answer is very simply that John was Elijah but he didn't know it! Thus we see from our Bible example that a man can have God working through him and not know it. Likewise, God could easily have divinely directed the King James translators without their active knowledge.
In spite of their (translators of the Authorized Version) outstanding character, they never claimed divine inspiration. (A claim which, if they had made, would over joy their detractors as evidence of a prideful spirit.)
Upvote
0
And the definition I gave "sex outiside of marriage" covers all of those as well. Any kind of sex NOT between a man and a woman married to each other is included in fornication. The point I was making is that translating "inappropriate contenteia" as immorality is a false translation since immorality is subjective to whatever someone wants it to mean.
As for fornications if you'll notice, all of those sins listed are plural; not because theres more than one FORM of each, but because they're done more than once by more than one person.
Upvote
0
Exactly. There were multiple English Bibles being used by the people (Geneva, Bishop's, Tyndale's, etc) and so they saw that more than one Bible version was harmful and divisive. After the AV was complete, it didnt take long for the others to die out until it was used by 99.9% of all English speaking Christians. Of course, in man's wisdom we have now had 100+ English "bibles" since 1881.
"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you..." 1Cor 1:10
Now how can we follow Paul's statement here when everyone has a different Bible?
Upvote
0
LouisBooth
Well-Known Member
"Now how can we follow Paul's statement here when everyone has a different Bible?"
Umm..that's pretty easy...go to the greek and hebrew for clarification if needed.
Umm..that's pretty easy...go to the greek and hebrew for clarification if needed.
Upvote
0
Now as to whether there is or is not only one form of murder, or of evil thought, or of sexual immorality - that I will leave the reader to judge.
You argue that fornication means any form of sex outside marriage.
So on that I was wrong - "fornication" had a restricted meaning even in Middle English.
The question therefore is - should the translators of the modern Bibles have used "promiscuity" as the proper rendering for "inappropriate contenteia", or should they have used a broader term? Adultery and concupiscence ARE separately listed from "inappropriate contenteia" - though that would seem to be more an exposition of "inappropriate contenteia" than different things in the list. Was the author's intention to say "promiscuity, concupiscence and lasciviousness" or was the authors' intention to say "sexual immorality: conscupiscence and lasciviousness?"
You argue that fornication means any form of sex outside marriage.
You have made your own definition for fornication. The word does not include adultery, it does not include concupiscence, it does not include inappropriate behavior with animals, it does not include lasciviousness. In MIDDLE English "fornication" basically (using the vernacular, not the literal word meaning) meant to go whoring - it had much the same meaning as promiscuity does today.
So on that I was wrong - "fornication" had a restricted meaning even in Middle English.
The question therefore is - should the translators of the modern Bibles have used "promiscuity" as the proper rendering for "inappropriate contenteia", or should they have used a broader term? Adultery and concupiscence ARE separately listed from "inappropriate contenteia" - though that would seem to be more an exposition of "inappropriate contenteia" than different things in the list. Was the author's intention to say "promiscuity, concupiscence and lasciviousness" or was the authors' intention to say "sexual immorality: conscupiscence and lasciviousness?"
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
That still doesnt answer the question. You can't just go back to the "Greek" as if its cut and dry what something means. You can look at 10 different greek lexicons and find 10 different meanings for a word. Nobody knows for sure what a word meant 2000 years ago, and modern lexicons merely represent what the author thinks it meant. If you want to know what the Hebrew means, go to Israel and ask anyone who speaks both Hebrew and English which Bible is the best. They'll almost all say the KJV. People today find it easier to believe a man made reference work rather than the Bible. :o
The Bible itself proves that statement wrong:
"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultery:..." Matthew 19:9
According to this scripture, fornication includes adultery. Whereever you got that definition for fornication, its evidently NOT the Bible's definition.
Upvote
0
Well, not quite. Lexicons are far more than what the editors "think." Rather, they examine the uses of the words and the contexts in the original settings. Then they offer "glosses" to show various ways that the word "means." But even then, it is context that determines the meaning of a word, in its relationship to other words.
And BTW, what do you suppose the KJV translators used? Yep, you guessed it - lexicons. Wonder why?
No, that would only show what contemporary Hebrew speaking people associate with a word. This is even far less reliable than the lexicons.
Upvote
0
Rjano21 - You are quite correct. Fornication is not a good word to be using as a translation for inappropriate contenteia. It was merely line of best fit in Middle English. Sexual immorality is a far better term in today's language, and as I said:
However, a check of Websters shows that "fornication" - from the 14th Century onwards - is by Websters definition - "consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other." Even so, "inappropriate contenteia" has a far wider range than "fornication." You are quite right - the Bible's use of the word shows that "fornication" is not the (absolutely) correct translation for the Bible's word "inappropriate contenteia."
According to the AKJV translators' own words - the version was the best work that it was humanly possible to achieve. That makes the AKJV as much a work of man as any other version.
As to your claim that
1/ As with almost all languages the words themselves may have a variety of meanings. (I can open a can, for example, but no-one container opens an able to) In Japanese Hana might be "nose" or it might be "flower"
2/ While different words may be used to translate the same Greek word, the words are synonymous in the context where they are used, but word "b" might be a better choice than word "a" for a given passage. The Concordant New Testament uses where possible only one English word for any given Greek word. It is, in consequence, not the kind of Bible to be used for general reading.
3/ Specific to the King James, synonymous, rather than the same, words were used wherever possible deliberately - To avoid giving the impression that the king favoured one particular word in common use over another.
As to where I got the definition for "fornication" - it was in a dictionary.
However, a check of Websters shows that "fornication" - from the 14th Century onwards - is by Websters definition - "consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other." Even so, "inappropriate contenteia" has a far wider range than "fornication." You are quite right - the Bible's use of the word shows that "fornication" is not the (absolutely) correct translation for the Bible's word "inappropriate contenteia."
According to the AKJV translators' own words - the version was the best work that it was humanly possible to achieve. That makes the AKJV as much a work of man as any other version.
Incorrect - EVEN IF one is in truth unable to go back to the Koine Greek directly for definitive word meanings, the language of the Septuagint is not so different from Koine. As the Septuagint translates the Hebrew into Greek, we have a definitive record of the Greek word meanings in Hebrew.
As to your claim that
little can be said. If the language was as unsure as you suggest, it would be impossible to produce any valid translation. One CAN look in a greek lexicon and find that a given word is translated in a variety of ways (in most Bibles), and that for two reasons (or in the case of the AKJV, three).
1/ As with almost all languages the words themselves may have a variety of meanings. (I can open a can, for example, but no-one container opens an able to) In Japanese Hana might be "nose" or it might be "flower"
2/ While different words may be used to translate the same Greek word, the words are synonymous in the context where they are used, but word "b" might be a better choice than word "a" for a given passage. The Concordant New Testament uses where possible only one English word for any given Greek word. It is, in consequence, not the kind of Bible to be used for general reading.
3/ Specific to the King James, synonymous, rather than the same, words were used wherever possible deliberately - To avoid giving the impression that the king favoured one particular word in common use over another.
Upvote
0
Does anyone else besides myself notice how handy these "original manuscripts" and all the different and corrupt Greek manuscripts come in, when one wants to twist
what the Holy Bible teaches?
It always comes down to what/where/who your Final Authority is, is it available, do you need a critic, scholar or Dr.(contrary to how it might seem, with all the Doctors 'around' straightening out scripture, God is NOT sick!) to tell us what God MENT to say, in a language 98% of the world cannot speak?
Thank you again Pastor Thunderchild for that uplifting and edifing
post on your faith in Gods words(?). And thanks also for explaining what you presumme the Scripture means and teaches, instead of what it accurately and simply says.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
All it means is that they were humble in their task, they didnt presume to be inspired although it doesnt rule out the possibility that they were. There's certainly no good reason to reject the influence of the Holy Spirit guiding their translation efforts. Their moral character and linguistic scholarship were second to none.
The septuagint is far from being a definitive record of word meanings. Considering it was made by Origen, an esoteric philosopher condemned as a heretic by the early churches, it doesnt bear much weight compared to other sources. The AV translators even mentioned the septuagint as having alterations from the traditional text (hence they did not use it).
The problem with most of these modern lexicons is that they use secular definitions and sometimes the modern Greek usage. They'll look to the writings of pagans, poets, and philosophers then use these meanings to interpret the Bible. Today we don't have any written lexicons from the 17th century, but that's probably because the AV translators knew Koine Greek so intimately they didnt need them.
As for Hebrew, it hasnt changed much at all in the past 2000+ years since it was hardly used until 1947. In fact, one of the AV translators had read the entire Hebrew Bible (Old testament) in Hebrew by the time he was 5 years old. Kids today can't even read basic english at 5, and all you have to do is look at the society to see why. They'll sit in front of a TV 4-6 hours a day watching SpongeBob and Teletubbies and their parents wonder why they're dumb and getting bad grades. 400 years ago there was no TV or any other electronics to dumb people down. Instead, those in school spent their time in and out of class reading and learning. The average number of fluent languages among the translators was around 10. You can't find anyone today that would spend that much time learning linguistics (except the pope and few others).
Upvote
0
Er... I don't think Origen made the septuagint, since it was around before Christ. Also, Origen didn't wander off the reservation until late in his life.
Upvote
0
Religious leaders have always sought to usurp the place of God,
the Author of Scripture.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
II Timothy 3:16
These religious leaders want control over Bible believers. This way, they can "have dominion" over the body of Christ and the Book!
the Author of Scripture.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
II Timothy 3:16
These religious leaders want control over Bible believers. This way, they can "have dominion" over the body of Christ and the Book!
Upvote
0
Jesusong
Veteran
Rjano21:
From reading what you stated in your quote, I come to the conclusion that your really don't know what you are saying, or you are being grossly mis-lead. What you said was:
I think you need to recheck your sources.
From reading what you stated in your quote, I come to the conclusion that your really don't know what you are saying, or you are being grossly mis-lead. What you said was:
The septuagent has pre-Christian origins, so how can someone from the 4th century be considered the author of it. The oldest known ms. of the Septuagent (commonly known as LXX ) is a fragmentary papyrus of Deuteronomy 25-28 in the John Rylands University Library, Manchester, dated 150 B.C.
I think you need to recheck your sources.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Status
