• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Authorised King James Version

Discussion in 'Bibliology & Hermeneutics' started by Thunderchild, Feb 7, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    I note that one person's tag states that the only true version is the King James version.

    Would the writer of that comment care to tell us which of the various versions of the AV is referred to?

    Would the writer of that comment care to share with us why that belief is held?
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. nyj

    nyj Goodbye, my puppy

    +1,247
    Catholic
    The best version of the Bible is the one that a person will pick up and read.

    That's my opinion at any rate. :)

    PS: This is my 15th post, which means I can have a custom avatar now! Woo woo!
     
  3. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Greetings NYJ - that's an interesting tag you have there. Congrats on the milestone.

    You are right of course - provided that is, that the person is reading a Bible with his eyes instead of his preachers' tongues. And provided that he can actually understand what is written. Too many people choose Bibles because they have a reputation for being good - but do not have the language skills to understand the grammar. Less problems would arise from the Good News properly understood than from a Concordant Bible mis-understood.
     
  4. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    The King James Authorized Version (AV1611) Holy Bible
    (any edition)
    The Bible God uses and Satan hates!

    Psalm 12
    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.


    Ed
     
  5. truthseeker2758

    truthseeker2758 New Member

    65
    +0

    Amen Ed.
    Garry :cool:
     
  6. JOhnPreparer

    JOhnPreparer Member

    257
    +0
    For my point of view, the best bible is God Himself, He is the inspirer and the real author. However, in the human context, well any can do because the real scriptures are in hebrews and greeks so if you really wanna know which bible represented the most truth bible, I give my vote to the scriptures. Every translation of cause will give some differenties. For examples, the word love. In hebrew, there are 9 different words to express love; agape, filia, and so on...... but for English, these nine words are compressed into one word love.

    So, i think it's not that importance what version of the bible we are using but the heart desire should be right. :0)

    God bless
     
  7. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    Just as a point of clarity:

    AGAPH (agape), FILEW (fileo), EROS, and STORGH (storge) are Greek words, not Hebrew. And there are not nine, but four. However, STORGH does not appear in the New Testament. And there is some overlap in the use of the words, context being the primary determiner.

    In written English we resort to adjectives to modify "love" to denote different degrees of "love."

    "love a lot"
    "really love"
    "passioante love"
    sexual love"
    etc.
    In oral communication we can use our voices to inflect a different meaning, which is not possible in written English.
     
  8. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Filosofer> Does "eros" really equate to love, rather than to lust? And would "charis" not qualify as love?
     
  9. Navigator

    Navigator Pizzagator...

    337
    +1
    Protestant
    only two greek words for love are in the NT, agapao, and phileo

    charis (Strong's 5485), is like grace, favor or thanks...

    agapao is love shown through actions...

    phileo is more of a close feeling, like brotherly love (hence Phildelphia - city of brotherly love)
     
  10. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    Well, if you look at my previous post, I didn't claim that. In English, do we not hear satements such as "Let's make love"? What is the referent for "love" in that statement? "Love" in that context denotes the sexual act. That was my point that the meanings of words have to be taken in context.

    I'm assuming that you are referring to XARIS (charis), which in most contexts often translates to

    1. "graciousness, attractiveness" (Luke 4:22 "gracious words)

    2. "favor, grace" (Acts 14:26)

    3. (subdivision of the above) "divine favor or grace" as part of an introductory formula in a letter (Ephesians 1:2) or conclusion (Ephesians 6:24)

    4. "gracious deed" (2 Cor. 1:15)

    Is there a case where XARIS could be translated "love"? Perhaps. But that's an extended study of every use of the word and detailed study of each context.




    Regarding the issue of "love" as a semantic domain (but is this English, Greek domain?) we discover that the domain is much broader than our typical understanding of the concept. For instance, our list would expand to include the at least the following Greek words:

    EPIPOTHEW ("to have a great affection for" 1 Thes. 2:8)

    SPLAGXNIZOMAI ("experience great affection and compassion for someone" Luke 10:33)

    PLATUNW THN KARDIAN (an idiom: "broaden the heart" 2 Cor. 6:11)

    and so on. But the question arises: do these words relate to what we understand is "love"? I would suggest not without greater expansion of the thought, in which case we no longer say "love" but use a closer parallel to "be compassionate" or something like that.
     
  11. lig75

    lig75 New Member

    33
    +0
    Christian
    Some of you study too much Greek and not enough given by the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul stated that he would just as soon count all his knowledge as loss but to know Jesus and Him crucified. Great knowledge is not the sum of your salvation. Solomon, another brilliant man said much study was wearisome, and the sum of it all was to love God and keep His commandments. Read last of Eccl. for exact words. God called more of the unlearned to preach, then filled them with His Word.
    To think the love that is of God is anything else than pure is a blasphemy.
     
  12. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    Since you don't know me, I guess it would be possible to get that impression. But my study of Greek and Hebrew is for the purpose of knowing his Word. Since I teach at the college level, that is part of my God-called preparation and study. And yes, I teach at a mission congregation where most of the people have never had any interaction with the Gospel.

    Yes, preaching the Gospel can be done by anyone. But I have heard and read some "preaching/teaching" that would have offended Paul, Solomon, and probably the Holy Spirit, too - because the person claimed to have insight into the text and didn't need to study. In fact, they had changed the text so much that they were falsifying the Word of God.

    So, my point is that someone can be 'learned" in the Biblical languages and also Spirit-filled and led. :)
     
  13. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    +10
    Christian
    I prefer the NKJV which is based on the same manuscripts but eliminates an antiquated 17th century language. I agree that the KJV is a good translation, but let's not go too far and claim it is the autogrpha.

    God Bless
     
  14. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    not to mention spouse love, parent love, child's love of parent etc and so forth.
     
  15. lizgal220

    lizgal220 New Member

    25
    +0
    if you're curious about the KJV only thing, the Jack. T. Chick tract people are pretty vehement about it. Try www.chick.com and browse for a bit. You'll get an earful.
     
  16. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    No thanks Lizgal - I've been getting an earful of that nonsense on chatlines and bulletin boards for five years and more.
     
  17. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    In America, you have two kinds of Fundamentalists

    1. Bible believing Fundamentalists who believe that the Bible they read, teach,
    and preach is the Holy Scriptures--the living words of the living God;
    2. Apostate Fundamentalists who use and preach the same Book, without believing it.
    They "call it" the "Word of God"--meaning it contains a message from God.
     
  18. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    And of the two, EdJones, who are the ones who thump the Bible in their hands and proclaim "God said it, I believe it, That settles it" - when what they are claiming "God said" has to be, according to them, explained and reworded to make it fit with what they believe, then explain that what is written is not what is meant, because if what was written was what was meant it would be pure nonsense - if it wasn't reinterpreted with heart knowledge instead of head knowledge, it would be saying precisely the opposite of what is true.
    Are these the "fundamentalists" that you find laudible? - the ones who insist on using the AKJV, that being a Bible most amenable to re-interpretation because it uses words that no longer have the same meanings as they did when the version was first written - that uses a grammar unfamiliar. A version which in so many ways is no longer properly comprehensible to those who are not themselves scholars?
     
  19. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Someone once said, "God will give you a steak, but He won't cut it up and feed it to you."
    Consider these facts:
    God has gone to all the trouble to inspire the perfect originals. He has collated the books of the Old Testament and New Testament and documented their authenticity. He has preserved His words against attack from Roman Catholic tyrants and Alexandrian philosophers. This process has cost Him the lives, homes and families of some of His most faithful servants. He assembled the very best scholars in history and had them translate it into the world's language (English) in its absolutely purest form.
    And then YOU gripe about the "no longer properly comprehensible".
    Shut up and eat your steak!

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One of the primary advertising gimmicks used to sell modern English translations is that they will be easier to understand for the potential customers. The customer, having been assured that he/she cannot possibly understand the "old archaic" King James gratefully purchases the modern English Bible and unknowingly condemns themself to a life of biblical ignorance. Modern English translations may be easier to read but they are not easier to understand.
    Let's look at the equation in simple terms. If the "archaic" language and the "thee's" and "thou's" of the King James Bible really do hamper the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit in communicating His message to the Christians, then several things should be true of one or all of the raft of modern English translations on the Bible market today.
    1. If modern English translations, such as the New American Standard Version, New International Version, New King James Version, and Today's English Version were easier to understand, then the Holy Spirit's message to the Christian would flow freer and accomplish greater spiritual victories in the lives of God's people on an individual basis. Yet it is sadly evident that this is not happening.
    In fact it is only too evident to any objective observer that today's Christians are more worldly and less dedicated to Jesus Christ than their nineteenth or even early twentieth century counterparts who were raised on and read the King James Bible. Surely a Bible that was "easier to understand" would have dramatically increased successes in battling sin, worldliness and carnality, but this JUST HAS NOT HAPPENED.
    2. Secondly, if the modern English translations were really easier to understand then I believe God would show a little more gratitude for them by using at least one to spark a major revival in this nation.
    It is elementary to see that if the "old archaic" King James Bible has been hampering the desired work of the Holy Spirit, then God should be eager to bless the use of any translation that would be easier for His people to understand.
    Again, it is all too obvious that no mass spiritual awakening of any kind has been initiated by any one of today's modern translations. Today's modern translations haven't been able to spark a revival in a Christian school, let alone expected to close a bar.
    In fact, since the arrival of our modern English translations, beginning with the ASV of 1901, America has seen:
    1. God and prayer kicked out of our public school
    2. Abortion on demand legalized
    3. Homosexuality accepted nationally as an "alternate life style"
    4, In home ****ography via TV and VCR
    5. Child kidnapping and ****ography running rampant
    6. Dope has become an epidemic
    7. Satanisrn is on the rise
    If this is considered a "revival" then let's turn back to the King James to STOP it.
    In fact, the ONLY scale used to claim success for a new translation is how well it sells. This depraved Madison Avenue sales system should set alarms ringing in the Christian. Instead, deluded by television, they dutifully nod and remark that, "It must be good, everybody's buying one."
    Is there any "good" coming from modern translations? Surely. The publishing companies are making millions.
    Today American Christians are spiritually anemic. They turn instead to their favorite "Bible psychologist" for help rather than Scripture. America as a whole is as morally decayed as Sodom and Gomorrah. (Ezekiel 16:49).
    Where is the spiritual help and hope that an "easier to understand" translation should bring'?
    Instead, perhaps we are in this desperate condition because of those very translations.
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
     
  20. Apologist

    Apologist 2 Tim. 2:24-26

    +10
    Christian
    Ed,

    With all due respect, you are taking this too far and are starting to sound almost cultic in your arguments. The problem most people have with the KJV is not the translation but the antiqated 17th century language. Consider Acts 28:13: And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:

    Do you know what, "fetched a compass" means? Most people have no clue. Why? Because it is old english and we don't live in King James' territory in the 17th century. There is nothing wrong with other scholarly translations such as the NKJV and the NASB. If you prefer the KJV that is fine, it is a good translation and has beautiful language that people like to hear. Let's keep this in perspective. Now I agree there are some real bad translations out there also which we have reason to stand up against, but let's not divide over something like this.

    God Bless
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...