• 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. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    ed jones. Do you know greek and hebrew? Can you give sources to back up what you are saying. If not your words are pretty meaningless.
     
  2. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Perfect Meter

    Another reason the King James Bible is to be preferred is because it has a perfect meter. The King James Bible is written short/long, short/long, short/long. "Thy word / have I hid in my heart / that I / might not sin against thee." Short/long, short/long. Why? So that you can memorize it. Just try and memorize the New International Version. You would be surprised at how many seminary professors who hate the King James, and who normally reject its use, will allow students to memorize out of the King James. They do this because they understand it is much easier to memorize out of the King James than it is to memorize out of any other version. By the end of the first semester, all of the students normally memorize from the King James because they realize it is the easiest to memorize from.Why? Because it has a meter. The NIV does not have a meter. The American Standard doesn't have a meter. The Living Bible doesn't have a meter.

    The Bible commands us, "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word" Psalm 119:9. The Bible says we should "meditate therein day and night" Joshua 1:8. The Bible says "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee" Psalm 119:11. The key to success is Bible memorization.

    The King James Bible is easy to memorize while the new versions are nearly impossible to memorize. I almost wonder if they are doing this on purpose to discourage future generations from memorizing the Word of God.
     
  3. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    Did the translators do this or the editors of the text or those who published the book?

    So, are you saying that if a word is "not" in italic in the KJV that that corresponding word will be in the Greek/Hebrew?
     
  4. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart

    yet hardened? Jesus once asked His apostles Mark 8:17 Sin and

    the hardening of the heart can prevent a person's

    understanding the word of God. People can have their

    understanding darkened because they are ignorant of God's

    word Eph 4:8 -- yet people would claim that lack of

    understanding produces the ignorance and not vice versa. God

    removes understanding from teachers who reject His word I

    Timothy 1:9, hiding their heart from understanding, Job 17:4.

    When God removes a man's understanding, an updated

    translation does not restore it.
     
  5. Navigator

    Navigator Pizzagator...

    337
    +1
    Protestant
    A quick clarification. The 'new' versions aren't meant to be taken as word-for-word (or formerly equivalent, i.e. KJV, NASB), because they are translated thought-for-thought (or dynamically/functionally equivavlent, i.e NIV, NLT). Thus any attempt to compare a formerly equivalent translation with a dynamically equivalent translation will lead to this 'they stripped out words' or they 'added words' discussions.

    But lets take another copyrighted, new formerly equivalent translation that has been under some condemnation in this thread... the New American Standard

    From the forward:
    So... in this new translation, Italics are used to denote words that aren't found in the Greek or Hebrew...

    Peace.

    [sup]1[/sup]New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).
     
  6. tericl2

    tericl2 A Work in Progress

    741
    +6
    Christian
    Yes, i looked at every occurence. And yes you can say "immerse".

    As for Mark 7:3,4 --- Do you wash your hands with out fully immersing them under the water?? If so how do you rinse? By the way this verse is translated as wash, which is a definition of BAPTIVZW.

    1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
    2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
    3. to overwhelm

    all definitions point toward an immersion. And I saw nothing to dispute this in the other lexicons.
    BTW, I went ahead and looked up all other forms of the word.
    The primary word is BAVPTW (bapto)
    - to dip, dip in, immerse
    BAPTIVZW is a derivative of this word
    bavptisma - derivitive of BAPTIVZW
    --immersion, submersion
    baptismovß - derivitive of BAPTIVZW
    -- a washing, purification effected by means of water
    a.of washing prescribed by the Mosaic law (Heb 9:
     
  7. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Dr. Frank Logsdon, the chairman of the New American Standard translation committee, became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He renounced his own translation methods. He renounced his own Bible that he was the chairman of and he became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He said the following in his public statement of disassociation from the New American Standard:

    "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, terribly wrong... The deletions are absolutely frightening… there are so many ... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception?
    Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, [Mr. Lockman owned the publishing company that published the NASV] explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV."
     
  8. Navigator

    Navigator Pizzagator...

    337
    +1
    Protestant
    Interesting quote, do you happen to have a cite, or a timeframe when such an epistle was written, or stated by Mr. Logsdon?
     
  9. tericl2

    tericl2 A Work in Progress

    741
    +6
    Christian
    John 3:16 is often used to show how some newer versions, the NIV espaecially, are flawed. So I did some Greek comparison of the verse with the KJV Strong's. Here is what i saw......in 3:16 and other verses in similar context.

    begotten - monogenhvß (transliterated as monogenes)

    1.single of its kind, only
    a.used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
    b.used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
    son - uiJovß (transliterated as huios)
    1.a son
    a.rarely used for the young of animals
    b.generally used of the offspring of men
    c.in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)
    d.in a wider sense, a descendant, one of the posterity of any one,
    1.the children of Israel
    2.sons of Abraham
    e.used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower
    1.a pupil
    2.son of man
    a.term describing man, carrying the connotation of weakness and mortality
    b.son of man, symbolically denotes the fifth kingdom in Daniel 7:13 and by this term its humanity is indicated in contrast with the barbarity and ferocity of the four preceding kingdoms (the Babylonian, the Median and the Persian, the Macedonian, and the Roman) typified by the four beasts. In the book of Enoch (2nd Century) it is used of Christ.
    c.used by Christ himself, doubtless in order that he might intimate his Messiahship and also that he might designate himself as the head of the human family, the man, the one who both furnished the pattern of the perfect man and acted on behalf of all mankind. Christ seems to have preferred this to the other Messianic titles, because by its lowliness it was least suited to foster the expectation of an earthly Messiah in royal splendour.
    3.son of God
    a.used to describe Adam (Lk. 3:
    4.
    1.used to describe those who are born again (Lk. 20:
    5.and of angels and of Jesus Christ
    1.of those whom God esteems as sons, whom he loves, protects and benefits above others
    1.in the OT used of the Jews
    2.in the NT of Christians
    3.those whose character God, as a loving father, shapes by chastisements (Heb. 12:5-
    6.
    1.those who revere God as their father, the pious worshippers of God, those who in character and life resemble God, those who are governed by the Spirit of God, repose the same calm and joyful trust in God which children do in their parents (Rom. 8:14, Gal. 3:26 ), and hereafter in the blessedness and glory of the life eternal will openly wear this dignity of the sons of God. Term used preeminently of Jesus Christ, as enjoying the supreme love of God, united to him in affectionate intimacy, privy to his saving councils, obedient to the Father's will in all his acts


    So, "monogenes huios ", traslated literally would be closer to the NIV - his "only son"
    Only "huios" was used when referring Adam
     
  10. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    The AKJV was copyrighted until the mid 1950s at least, and possibly later. Copyright was vested in the crown. The reason for Strong's use of the King James is probably because until 1885 or then abouts, the AKJV was pretty much the only English language Bible in mass circulation
     
  11. Navigator

    Navigator Pizzagator...

    337
    +1
    Protestant
    I was bored and curious... so I did an Internet search on this Frank Logsdon to see what I could come up with...

    Sure enough, what edjones posted in duplicated several times on the internet, and is also in Gail Riplinger's book 'New Age Bibles', but it seems there is some disagreement on what Frank Logsdon's role in the NASB was.

    FWIW, Frank Logsdon's two internet claims to fame are his alleged denounciation of the NASB, and the profession of the 'Five White Dangers'. (the five white dangers being meat (containing white fat), dairy, salt, sugar, and white flour. The articles contain the same prelude about an over the dinner table conversation with Dr. Logsdon late of the moody church, that took place in the 1960s, and that thirty years later Dr. Logsdon was going strong, because of this diet... [sub]smells ULish to me[/sub])

    The KJV endorsement is always the same as well (another hint at the UL angle... and it seems there are some refutation regarding his association with Lockerman and the NASB project...

    Dr. Logsdon isn't listed as a translator of the NASB on the Lockerman homepage.

    another refutation is listed here, by a Robert L. Thomas:
    Another here, says:
    this site continues to deconstruct the arguments found in Dr. Logsdon's address.

    This is apparently the Lockerman Foundation's response to Riplinger's New Age Bibles, and includes this paragraph:
    So while it was fun chasing this red herring, it seems that we are at an impasse from what we can glean from the Internet regarding the NASB and Dr. Logsdon.

    edjones's response did nothing in addressing the fact that the NASB (one of them New Age Bibles, donchano) uses Italics for words not in the Greek text.

    Peace.
     
  12. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    The italicized words in the KJV never alter the meaning of the text. They serve only as enhancers which cause the text to flow better in the English language. Nontheless, the translators of the KJV acknowledge that these words were not originally dictated by God and so they, to be honest (and to avoid the plagues of Revelaton 22) set these words apart by placing them in italics. The translators of the new versions are not honest enough to do this. Instead, THEIR words are printed as equal with God's words.

    Flipping the NAS to any page at random:
    Matthew 4:22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother* shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, **Raca, shall be guilty before ***the supremem court; and whoever shall say, 'you fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery ****hell.
    *some manuscripts insert here: without cause **Aramaic for empty- head or good for nothing ***Literally the Sanhedrin ****Literally Gehenna of fire
    So much for no attempts being made to identify whether the NAS at least has made an attempt to show insertions - it not only shows the insertions, but also notes when manuscript evidence is not certain.

    Now what about the NIV? **random flip**

    Hmmm....OK - NAS doesn't make those distinctions for the words of necessity added - but does quite a good job of pointing out manuscript variances.

    OK - what of my trusty (a VERY new kid on the block) Concordant Bible? Um...that one marks out in bold type what is translated from the Greek - and that it does slavishly. If a verb has its tense change, only that part of the verb which is the stem is in bold - the rest is in ordinary print. Where tense cannot be translated, the fact is noted, with markers so that the reader can know exactly what was meant . example "had been running"
    And where most Bibles (AKJV included) don't consider it important to try to keep one Greek word with its English equivalent, the Concordant does.
     
  13. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Where hast tha been since I saw thee
    On Ilkla Moor ba' tat.
    There are places in England where the dialect strill reflects the language of 1611 - and also certain religious groups (Amish eg) which still use the old English as every day speech.

    Any claim that the English of the King James did not reflect the common language of the time is palpably false - and only the wilfully blind would not be able to determine the fact for themselves. The AV was produced with the express purpose of making the scriptures readily available to the common man.
     
  14. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    I hadn't intended to respond anymore. But in my preparation for Ephesians tonight, I came across one of these "plague ridden additions" in the KJV.

    In Ephesians 4:17 the KJV reads: This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye walk..." Now, according to what you have written above, the word "the" is not in italic; therefore, there should be a Greek word behind that word. Can you point out that specific word in the Greek (I'll help, you should look for the Greek definite article).

    Do you see it? Of course not, because it isn't there? So, did the KJV translators "add" to the word of God? By your criteria they did.
     
  15. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    edjones doesn't answer questions and I've pretty much written him off because he doesn't quote sources. He is just spamming away.
     
  16. liafail

    liafail New Member

    27
    +0
    constructive? NOT!
     
  17. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    Now, let's be very clear here about who and what is "constructive." I am not attacking the KJV. It is like any other translation. For its time it was very good. In light of our knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and additional archaelogical disoveries and linguistics, there are areas in which it does not provide the best translation. Is it the Word of God? Yep as much as any translation, and so is the NKJV, NAS, NIV, etc.

    However, this is a post against the unrealistic and unsubstantiated claims that have been made by KJV-Only advocates; it is their stance that is not constructive.
     
  18. camaro540

    camaro540 Regular Member

    318
    +0
    Messianic
    WOWWY !!!

    HHhhmmmm...... What was the focus of this thread again?

    Where is Jesus in all of this?
    How about our Father?

    I agree that its cool to have a chat about things, and the Word,
    but are we loosing our focus here?

    Are there any bible scholars here?

    This is getting outta control........

    I say walk the walk that Jesus would have us walk,
    abs-O-tivly follow Jesus Christ.... :)

    LOL

    I love you all, my Brothers, and Sisters in Jesus Christ

    Patrick
     
  19. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Some folks will really stretch their brain to try to 'prove' God's word and words only exist in some form of mystical magical form. You know, most folks just don't want to admit that the KJV would be the final form of His words as promised in Psalm 12:6,7. - Why? They don't want to put themselves into and under God's authority. Just like Eve in the garden - she thought it would be cool to be as a god - and these folks, they are their own gods.


    Can anyone answer these questions?

    1. Why would God inspire the originals and then not preserve them as promised -
    (note: I am talking about the words, not the papers, pieces, etc?)

    2. If you claim God has allowed some errors in the Bible today,
    why do you not afford Him for making some errors in the originals?

    3. Isn't the kind of faith you have "convenient" since it cannot be tested?
    After all, since all the perfect set of originals are LOST or either DESTROYED,
    you can rest safely in the fact that you can be challenged,
    but you will never be proven wrong
    since the EVIDENCE needed to prove you wrong (the "lost originals") is lost.

    4. Are you afraid to dare put the same faith in a Bible available today?

    5. Isn't it a fact that to believe in a perfect set of originals,
    but not believe in a perfect English Bible, is to believe NOTHING at all?

    6. To enforce a "convenient faith," would you go so far as to say, as others have said,
    that what God actually meant in Ps. 119:89 is that He preserved His perfect Bible
    in a library up in Heaven, and not on earth?

    7. If this is true, then didn't God write a book to Himself, and not to man?

    8. What is Scripture?

    9. WHO taught you the King James Bible is not the word of God?

    10. If "Scripture(s)" refers to the "original manuscripts,"
    then wasn't Jesus really being deceptive to His listeners?
    (Matt. 21:42; 22:29; Mk. 12:10,24; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 2:22; 7:38, 42; 19:37; 20:9 etc.)

    11. If you claim the King James has errors, then I would have to conclude
    the King James Bible is not the inerrant Bible.
    What is?
    The NASV? The NKJV? The LB? The NEB? The ASV? The JB?
    The NAB? The NWT, etc. etc. etc.?

    12. Since most Bible colleges and insitutes believe only the originals are inspired,
    aren't they really teaching a form of Deism?
     
  20. tericl2

    tericl2 A Work in Progress

    741
    +6
    Christian
    No one. I firmly believe the KJV is the Word of God. However, I also believe other translations are the Word too. The key here is that they are all "translations".

    Trying to make the KJV the "only" translation worthy to read can lead people away from God instead of too them. I use the KJV to study, but i also use the NIV and other resources that are available. The NIV is my personal preference because it is easier to read and understand. For reading enjoyment the KJV is lacking. It is too easy to get caught up in trying to just understand the text alone instead of God's message.
    I have known people that wouldn't have ever gotten into God's Word if only the KJV were available due to its archaic language and structure.

    Regardless, it is the Spirit that moves in peoples lives. I have faith and trust in God that He will move in my life whether i am reading the KJV or the NIV or the NASB.

    I have merely tried to point out that the KJV has many of the same problems that any other version has. There is plenty of documentation for that. Alot of which I have posted.

    Anyway, no matter the version you are reading I pray God blesses your time spent with Him.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...