Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If that is your opinion, then why bring up your attack on the contemporary translations/paraphrases in the first place? Or was that a round-a-bout way of defending the canon of scripture? (This is honest curiosity - you sounded like someone who was "all KJV, only KJV").If you notice I wrote "orignal" in quotation marks. I did not mean that is was the actual original, but somewhat like the original bible that most of the Church (after 1611) has used. I fullwell know of the preceding English Versions before the KJV, and i know about Martin Luther's German translationof the BIble and the Geneva BIble and so on....
The KJV is somewhat like a classic. Classics never die, and they do not need to be updated into a new language (although they are). Consider the works of Shakespeare as he wrote in the exact same language that the King James was written in. Are the Re-trasnlated versions as well known as the old? No, they are not. But if we are to quote the old, people would understand what we mean and to which we are referring. The same for the Bible, MANY, and I mean many phrases are famous in the KJV language- and people know them.
Now I have nothing wrong with the modern versions. I use an NIV and Leadership Bible myself. I understand that the Modern versions are better to understand by many peoples, and that is a blessing. However i also understand that the KJV is the most well known bible among peoples across the world. Now I am not a KJV only advocate, but i do prefer the KJV bible over the others. The language it is written in is not hard for me to understand. And as stated before. We must have God's word in our hearts, not just in the "right" translation.
We fuss too much about translations, and about "ruining" doctrines based on those translations (although it can happen). English is not the only language, there are thousands of different translations of the Bible- the KJV among them- and all of them accomplish the fact in that the Name of Jesus is published thourghout the World.
idioms are just expressions used by a culture. For example in our culture we say, "it is raining cats and dogs" to mean it is raining very heavy. But to another culture or time people would be thinking cats and dogs are falling from the sky if we said that because they didn't know the idiom. The idioms in the bible were know to those who read it because those phrases were contemporary to them. You didn't need to be educated, you just have had to grow up in that time.The Bible is not meant to be simply understood, alot of it's idioms and phrases, and teachings can only be understood by someone who has been educated.
Their problems was not understanding the language but the principles in which Jesus was teaching. When using metephors like "wheats and tares" and such they didn't understand what those represented until He told them.The Jews even stumbled at Jesus' teachings. And Jesus himself educated a taxman and fisherman so that they could understand him- he did not simply "clean up the language."
The big problem is sometimes not understanding the older form of a language can give you an opposite meaning of what was really being said. Like the word "let" which means to "allow", but back in the 17th century it meant to "restrain". So, when a person educated in English speaking schools today read such a thing they are bound to be lead astray. Which is why even the KJV translators advocated updating the language as it changes.And I agree languages do change and evolve, and sometimes people cannot understand old language but history also plays a role.
The KJV translators enjoyed the protection of the King, I don't believe they were that persecuted. In the time after the KJV was written and more discoveries were found the Catholics churches hold started to wane and people were allow more freedom when it comes to being able to translate. When the RSV came out even the Catholics even criticized it.Mind you that A group of Christians were persecuted and killed because of the Bible -from whose we gather the KJV. And the Persecuters, resulted in how we have the RSV and other "modern" translations.
There are problems with all translations if one looks hard enough. The question is are they faithful in their renderings and to they correctly reflect the faith which was given to the church by the Apostles and the Prophets.I need to not expose upon it, but i would also like to say that just like people find fault in the KJV and it's translators, there is also much fault in the Modern Versions and their translators. It is not as if their translations are perfect, or more accurate to the "originals."
It is well known that chick is KJVonly and does not give a balanced take on the issues. David W. Daniels may be educated in linguistics but is he a textual critic? Does he have the education and expertise to judge translations, which text and such?Why don't you read the Testimony of someone who once ONLY USED NIV AND NEW MODERN VERSION? He got his Bachelors of Arts at what is now called Hope University, Fullerton, California, in Linguistics and BibleBachelors of Arts at what is now called Hope University, Fullerton, California, in Linguistics and Bible and got his Masters of Divinity degree at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, in General Theology, majoring in Linguistics and took the three year Summer Institute of Linguistics courses with Wycliffe Bible Translators.
Read here:
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/saved.asp
Many of the Manuscripts we have were found buried in the desert or hidden in caves.
And what basis is there for this?Well if you actually read what he said you'll learn that he took Greek-Hebrew courses, and that he himself never suggested anyone read the KJV. Instead he, many times, gave people NIV and NKJV and such.
And I was not referring to the KJV translators as being persecuted I am referring to those whom ye seem to not know of, who were persecuted by the Catholic Church because of the Bibles and Manuscripts that they had in their possesion.
What evidence, proof or basis is there for this?Jerrell said:Many of the Manuscripts we have were found buried in the desert or hidden in caves.
Many of the Manuscripts we have were found buried in the desert or hidden in caves.
Well if you actually read what he said you'll learn that he took Greek-Hebrew courses, and that he himself never suggested anyone read the KJV. Instead he, many times, gave people NIV and NKJV and such.
And I was not referring to the KJV translators as being persecuted I am referring to those whom ye seem to not know of, who were persecuted by the Catholic Church because of the Bibles and Manuscripts that they had in their possesion.
You say a group here persecuted and killed because of the Bible. Our subject has been the KJV. Then you make the comment, "from whose we gather the KJV" This sentence make no sense because it isn't grammatically correct. Not sure what the word "whose" means in this fragment or what "...we gather the KJV" means. So, I have to guess as to what you implied in this statement. I believed you were talking about the KJV translators because that is the subject which we were speaking.You stated said:Mind you that A group of Christians were persecuted and killed because of the Bible -from whose we gather the KJV.
If only the educated can discern truth then tell me why do you beleive in Jesus Christ who never attended any school or university? Not to mention the Apostles who learned from a Carpenter's son. The Apostle Paul was the only one among them who was educated in the school. Jesus Christ was God, and being God he was able to give the spirit of discernment.
I tell you that degrees proove nothing. Because countless millions hold doctorate degrees and are yet on their way to hell because they reject the simple things. You list those "qualifications" as though they mean anything, how many awards someone won means nothing, how much education they got, means nothing, heck, they could translated their own bible and still that would mean nothing to me. The only thing that matters is "Are you saved and indwelled with the spirit of discernment?" Only he himself and God knows the answer to that question, so don't list those things as though that prooves he knows the truth more than the man who wrote that essay on the link i gave you. I know of Many Preachers with doctorate degrees that don't even believe that we can be saved now, but could go to hell at any second (and I mean Christians). The Amount of Education and awards mean nothing. A man on a street corner can be smarter than the man with the college degree.
Thanks.Well we've found manuscripts in a lot of places. Probably the most unusual are some of the papyrus fragments taken from mummies. Papyrus was both used to stuff certain mummies and for wrapping in some cases.
But I would say it seems that you are kind of mixing up your manuscripts.
When we say Majority or Byzantine text. That is referring to a family of Greek New Testament Manuscripts. The translations that are most common that reflect a subset of the Majority text are those from the Textus Receptus familiy. The KJV, NKJV, Bishop's, Tyndale, etc. The Textus Receptus is not a critical text, it is taken overall from several manuscripts, in each area it tends mostly to follow one manuscript with some changes when the people who worked on it conformed it more to what they perceived as the common readings. The critical text of the Majority Family is reflected in the English Majority Text Version. Which is available online, as well as for e-sword and is also available in the Apostle's Bible and the new Logos Bible with an Old Testament based on the Septuagint.
When we say Alexandrian text, that is a family of Greek New Testament manuscripts, as is the Western Text.
The Critical text still refers to the New Testament, but is a text arrived at by studying the Greek New Testament manuscripts both individually, but also as families, and following a set of rules based on studies to help do the best job we can of reconstructing the original text. The Critical text is used by most translations today. NASB, NIV, NET, HCSB and so on. They often still reference the longer passages not believed to be original but found in the KJV. They either set them off in brackets or put them in footnotes.
Some people make a big deal out of the manuscripts used for the New Testament, there are even those who claim the text behing the New Testament in the KJV is superior despite it being based mostly on a handful of manuscripts basically chosen at random, not to mention that the KJV translators did not even always follow the Greek text they had but too the Latin over the Greek in some places, and even some places have no basis in Greek at all but are either insertions from the Latin or back translations from Latin to Greek.
Many of the manuscripts found in the Desert have nothing to do with this. They are Old Testament texts.
The Old Testament Masoretic text that is basically behind all English translations you will find except for the handful based on the Septuagint has had some critical work done to it, but really is not a critical text in the same sense the New Testament text is. Though there is now some correction being done. If there is a conflict in the text it is still reproduced by the text instead of changing it to what is believed to be right based on studies of other texts. But we more and more see translators doing that so that say the age of King Jehoiachin when he began to reign, in the Masoretic text, it was eight in one place eighteen in another. Based on other ancient families of text, it appears pretty certain that eighteen is correct in both places of the text so you would see translations reflecting that more.
When you hear of discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls. They don't enter into the New Testament discussion much because they are Old Testament manuscripts as well as Old Testament Apocryphal and sectarian manuscripts. There are no New Testament manuscripts among them.
No family of New Testament manuscripts could be said to come from manuscripts abandoned in the desert. Not to say some manuscripts haven't been found in deserts but way more have been found in libraries, or monasteries or other places, but not abandoned in deserts.
When you hear discussions about which manuscripts should be used for translation or you might hear about the KJV and the differences with modern translations, the discussion is pretty much limited to the New Testament. The so called Textus Receptus text was strictly New Testament. The King James Translators used the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament available to them at the time. It's a slightly different version than used today. But not very different.
Hope that helps.
Marv
What I meant was From Whom we recieved the KJV- bsaed on the texts they copied down on paper, and were persecuuted for.What would make you thnk I didn't read what he wrote? I have read several things from David Daniels. I think you should read up on the author. He is KJVonly, he doesn't promote the reading of other bible versions. He is against the NIV and the NKJV if you read his answers to Bible Version questions.
You may not understand what I was writing about in regard to his expertise. Reading Greek or Hebrew does not make one a textual critic. His bio doesn't show any expertise in this field. The authors I listed are giants in their field. Bruce Metzger is one of the most respected people in textual criticism. Dan Wallace who is part of a bible translation committee and also one of the top 20 textual critics alive today, also has a project of photographing all New Testament manuscripts he can find.
Daniels also speaks highly of Gail Riplinger which is well know to have very unscholarly book on the subject of the KJV bible and other version. So, this also hurts his credibility on this subject especially if he has not check the sources which she used in her writings.
What would make you think I don't know of the history or the persecutions of the Catholic Church? Or the history of the transmission of the manuscripts and bible version prior to the KJV?
You say a group here persecuted and killed because of the Bible. Our subject has been the KJV. Then you make the comment, "from whose we gather the KJV" This sentence make no sense because it isn't grammatically correct. Not sure what the word "whose" means in this fragment or what "...we gather the KJV" means. So, I have to guess as to what you implied in this statement. I believed you were talking about the KJV translators because that is the subject which we were speaking.
People's written statements really need context for us to understand, you may understand what is in your mind at the time you write and it may make sense to you when you read it, but unless people are thinking just like you they may not get what point you are trying to get across.
Blessings,
Chris
I know what you wrote about, but the subject coverd in the link is more than about salvation.I am assuming you are responding to me.
Can you tell me what I posted that has anything to do with what you are addressing? I believed we were talking about the subject of Textual Criticism, not the issues of salvation. I made no reference to people needing to be educated in higher learning facilities in order to understand the gospel. You should re-read what I wrote and address what I wrote. I wrote on being educated in how to read English, which is necessary of you want to read an English bible and I wrote on the education of those which study Textual Criticism. You went off on a tangent to make that about salvation which was never discussed until you brought it up on this post I am quoting from.
Blessings,
Chris
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?