• 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
    If I use an English text and translate that text into German, the English text is the original FOR THAT TRANSLATION - whether or not the English is the original language for the work. The originals for the English versions of the New Testament are Koine Greek - the complaint that they are not the autographs is nothing more than a pitiful smokescreen.

    Without the knowledge and scholarship of those who study Greek and Hebrew which EdJones is so eager to denigrate, there would be NO English version of the scriptures - including the AKJV.

    The Biblical admonition is to add to our faith, virtue and to our virtue, knowledge and to our knowledge.... 2 Peter 1 : 5 - . I don't intend to ignore the Biblical advice on this matter - and particularly for no better reason than to please the wilfully ignorant.

    As to that list of "altered" verses, just how many of them actually change the meaning of the text? Matthew 1:25 does, in the Greek, show that "he did not know her" - in what context did he not know her? The meaning of the original hasn't been altered, only the words used to express that meaning. Does it really need to be pointed out that arguments about mere words are not approved?

    Certainly has been shown by your interpretation of Psalms 12 just how reliable your interpretation is of what you can read, EdJones.
     
  2. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    It is impossible to be true to the originals because the originals have long been lost.

    Just how much value does God put on the originals?

    To get the answer we must explore several chapters in the book of Jeremiah beginning with the famous passage in chapter 36 concerning the roll that Jeremiah had written.

    In verse 21 the roll is brought before King Jehoiakim and read by his servant Jehudi.

    According to verse 23 Jehudi read three or four leaves and King Jehoiakim cut it up with a penknife and cast it into the fire on the hearth until it was destroyed.

    Thus ends ORIGINAL #1!

    Then the Lord moved Jeremiah to rewrite the roll adding some words to it. (Jeremiah 36:32)

    Thus ORIGINAL #2 is born.

    We are shown the text of this second original in Jeremiah 45- 51 where it reproduced for our benefit.

    Jeremiah told Seraiah to read this roll when he came into Babylon (Jeremiah 51:59-61). Then Jeremiah instructed Seraiah, after he finished reading the roll, to bind a stone to it and cast it into the Euphrates river (Jeremiah 51:63)!

    Thus ends ORIGINAL #2!

    But wait! We have a copy of the text of the roll in chapters 45-51. Where did it come from? It came from a copy of original #2 which we can only call ORIGINAL #3!

    So there are two very big problems for those who overemphasize the "originals."

    (1) Every Bible ever printed with a copy of Jeremiah in it has a text in chapters 45-51 which is translated from a copy of the "second" original, or ORIGINAL #3.

    (2) Secondly, NO ONE can overlook the fact that God didn't have the least bit of interest in preserving the "original" once it had been copied and its message delivered. So WHY should we put more of an emphasis on the originals than God does? An emphasis which is plainly unscriptural.

    Thus, since we have the text of the "originals" preserved in the King James Bible we have no need of the originals, even if they were available.
     
  3. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    ROTFL @ ed. If God has you write it, its ALWAYS original. Its his word.
    "Thus, since we have the text of the "originals" preserved in the King James Bible we have no need of the originals, even if they were available."

    NO ONE who translates a bible is doing so under the guide of the Holy spirit in the fact that it their translation is infaultable. The greek and hebrew manuscripts are copies and the words are infaultable, the translation into any other language is flawed by defintion because you loose something in the translation. this is why you always go to the greek and hebrew texts for clarification. Edjones, your ideas here are wayyyyy off.
     
  4. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Translating the King James Bible

    Unlike Westcott, Hort, and the R.V. Committee, King James went through great efforts to guard the 1611 translation from errors. Please note the following:

    1. In 1604, King James announced that fifty-four Hebrew and Greek scholars had been appointed to translate a new Bible for English speaking people. The number was reduced to forty-seven by the time the work formally began in 1607.

    2. Rather than working together all at one location, these men were divided into six separate groups, which worked at three separate locations. There were two at Westminster, two at Oxford, and two at Cambridge.

    3. Each group was given a selected portion of Scripture to translate.

    4. Each scholar made his own translation of a book, and then passed it on to be reviewed by each member of his group.

    5. The whole group then went over the book together.

    6. Once a group had completed a book of the Bible, they sent it to be reviewed by the other five groups.

    7. All objectionable and questionable translating was marked and noted, and then it was returned to the original group for consideration.

    8. A special committee was formed by selecting one leader from each group. This committee worked out all of the remaining differences and presented a finished copy for the printers in 1611.

    9. This means that the King James Bible had to pass at least FOURTEEN examinations before going to press.

    10. Throughout this entire process, any learned individuals of the land could be called upon for their judgment, and the churches were kept informed of the progress.

    QUESTION: Does THIS sound like an HONEST work of God or a DISHONEST work of the Devil?
     
  5. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    *sigh* no source at all...

    "QUESTION: Does THIS sound like an HONEST work of God or a DISHONEST work of the Devil?"

    It sounds like a mans work. It is not directly guided by the Holy Spirit as the greek and hebrew were.
     
  6. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Nonetheless - the King James translators decided to add to God's word (?) "the brother of" in a passage regarding the death of one Goliath (who is stated to be the brother of Goliath in another passage). Keep posting your lists of outrageous claims, EdJones - there are bound to be more such actions that you can identify for us.
    The translators of the AV also managed to mess up the translation of "god-fearing," rendering it as "too superstitious."
     
  7. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    So, Ed, how do you suppose all of the modern translations come into being? The process is no different than the KJV, except that more people from greater diversity of backgrounds are involved.

    Or do you think that they sit around for 10 years trying to think up ways to pervert God's Word and confound you? Yeah, of course, that must be it. :( :D
     
  8. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    I note also that EdJones has a strange concept of ecumenical, or perhaps not so strange. A number of people who call themselves ecumenical do sort of make popularity their god.

    However, there are ecumenical Christians who seek to strengthen links with others who believe in maintaining a strict adherence to the truths of the gospel of Christ, and will risk much within whatever denomination is there place to hang a hat, in service to the Christ - without fear or favour.
     
  9. camaro540

    camaro540 Regular Member

    318
    +0
    Messianic
    edjones said:

    2. Rather than working together all at one location, these men
    were divided into six separate groups , which worked at three
    separate locations
    . There were two at Westminster, two at
    Oxford, and two at Cambridge
    .


    Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the
    number of the beast: for it is the number of a man ; and his
    number [is] Six hundred threescore [and] six .

    HHhmmm, interesting

    No biggie, just something that caught my eye....

    Patrick
     
  10. Josephus

    Josephus <b>Co-Founder Christian Forums</b> Supporter

    +230
    Messianic
    edjones,
    the definition of spam I am referring to you in your case is the posting of large amounts of material copied from another website and pasted into these forums, rather than being original content of your own words and reasearch as you write a post.

    We don't tolerate it because it makes threads so long that they are hard to moderate and hard to keep track of. Here in the Discussion Tables we TRY to keep our posts as original to us as possible since it makes conversation constructive.

    And WE DON'T TOLERATE FRUITLESS debates: meaning we don't believe it is right to continue a debate when one or more sides refuse to consider or address another's viewpoint. We dislike blatant preaching here in the Discussion forums, especially in Interfaith and the Round Table. We're more into dialogue than into spamming and preaching. I please ask that you respect the atmosphere and purpose of this forum in the future, and consider responding appropriately to those who have responded to your threads and posts. :)

    Be blessed.
     
  11. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    I will agree it has been fruitless.
    ed
     
  12. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    Found ONLY in the AKJV? In that statement Ed could very well be correct....they aren't in the Hebrew either.


    Psa 12: 5 - 7 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set [him] in safety [from him that] puffeth at him. The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

    Nor can it be found in Psalms 12 : 5 - 7 .... only in Psalms 12 : 6 - 7. Or does someone think "keep them in safety" doesn't mean the Lord will "preserve them. " Or maybe someone would think that "thou shalt keep them" doesn't have the same context as "Johny keeps his word."
     
  13. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Here are seven (naturally) basic fundamentals that God wants us to know and what the scholars through their opinions and brains try to confuse and make obscure.

    1) There is a Devil and he is primarily interested in what God says!

    2) In deceiving anyone, two-thirds of what the devil says is true!

    3) The devils approach is always critical so that it poses questions!

    4) The devil aims at a man's pride and curiosity to get him to add to, or subtract from, what God said!

    5) His aim is to make man his own "god" so he can deify his own opinions and preferences, thereby becoming his own authority, standing against God's authority.

    6) The devil appeals to impressive vocabularies and educated positions to impress the uneducated with the necessity of getting rid of the Book and replacing it with anything (reliable translations, Hebrew and Greek lexicons, original autographs, the opinions of good, godly men, etc.)!

    7) God reveals nothing to any man because of that man's head knowledge of anything. The key to understanding the Bible, or the Author of the Bible, is a BELIEVING HEART AND A HUMBLE MIND.



    I Corinthians 2:9-14 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.



    John 20:29b - ...blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

    Or are you one of those scholars who wants to 'see' in order to believe? Funny, though - even if they say they 'see' first - none of them can agree on what they 'see'! There are over 400 modern perversions of the Bible and the list continues to grow. When will they finally 'believe'?
     
  14. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    What can I say?

    My faith does not rest in the wise and persuasive words of men, but in the witnessed power of God.

    My (admittedly lamentable) efforts at scholarship are not such as to persuade anyone, (persuasion by philosophy lasts only until a more interesting philosophy arrives) but to gain a better understanding of what God has said in the past, and what he is saying in the present - and that does not rely on the efforts of any single man or group of men.

    I accept that the attempts of ALMOST all Bible translators are honest and motived by good intentions, however poorly executed the attempts may have been. I reject utterly the ravings of people who insist on demeaning, libelling and slandering people who have worked with good intent, and on declaring an honest work to be of evil. Those who do such things show, not their intended victims, but THEMSELVES to be anathema, .

    The Bible is ink on paper, a pointer to understanding who and what God is and what he expects of us - As such, the Bible is useful, but it will never equal or replace the existence, and need for, the words of God to be written on the tablets of a person's heart. Nor will it ever replace the need for the evidence of God's hand on a person's life - words of ink on paper are NOT intended to show that God exists - the gifts of the Holy Spirit are given to achieve that end.
     
  15. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Thunderchild, don't flatter yourself, I wasn't refering to you with the word scholar or Scholarship.
    ed
     
  16. Thunderchild

    Thunderchild Sheep in Wolf's clothing

    +1
    Non-Denom
    I am surprised EdJones - having started by inaccurately interpreting a particular psalm, you have turned to find other passages which actually DO support your claim that the word of God endures forever. Well done.


    I love the way the King James Onlyers keep quoting this passage:
    But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    They never seem to notice that the natural man is so easy to identify - for it is impossible also for the natural man to cease from sin.
     
  17. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    Thats between you and God. I didn't write it, as bad as you dislike the verse.

    Psalm 119:140
    Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.


    Psalm 119:11
    Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.


    Colossians 3:16
    Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom;
     
  18. ZoneChaos

    ZoneChaos Senior Veteran

    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    Ed, why must the KJV be the only Bible to contain the complete message God wanted to give us? Why it specifically?

    There are many languages in the world.. why this one?

    There are many dialects in the world.. why this one?
     
  19. edjones

    edjones Active Member

    699
    +0
    You mean other than all the things I've posted so far....?

    because things that are not the same are different, words mean something, especially Gods words.

    Acts 20:21
    Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
     
  20. Me4him

    Me4him New Member

    31
    +0
    I've "skipped through" most of the post, reading "Ed's comments" concerning the KJV, and I'll have to say I agree with him.

    I don't use any versions except the KJV, so I'm not very familiar with "other versions", but in discussion on another forum, I notice a major flaw in the NIV.

    I don't recall the "exact verse", but it had translated the "day of Christ" as the "day of the Lord".

    The "day of Christ" is the day of the "Rapture", when we met Jesus in the air and go back to Heaven with him, which is before the tribulation,.

    The "day of the Lord" is when Jesus actually returns to the earth touching Mt Olives, and we are with him, which is after the tribulation.

    Reading the NIV, I would never have distinguished between these "days" or sorted out the exact sequence of events.

    The Bible isn't a book that can be read and understood in "General terms", it is written very "precise", and it's words have a very "precise meaning".

    Resurrection is another word that is commonly "misused".

    It means to be "back on Earth", alive.

    Resurrection is used to describe the "rapture", but in the rapture, they are not "back on earth, but go directly to heaven, when they return "back on earth" with Jesus is the "first resurrection", not the second.

    Overlooking these "minor details" is the source of all the confusion with "interpretations/translations".
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...