• 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.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

King James Version

Discussion in 'Bibliology & Hermeneutics' started by Hector Medina, May 21, 2002.

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

    kern Miserere Nobis

    +7
    Catholic
    It's funny that people still go for the ad hominems against Westcott and Hort, as if they were the *only* people to ever advocate a move away from the TR. It's sort of like attacking only Darwin for evolutionary theory......oh wait.

    -Chris
     
  2. Crono

    Crono Regular Member

    218
    +4
    Agnostic
    Single
    US-Others
    Actually, I remember seeing a book on this topic when I was shelfreading at the library I worked at. It was a book on Bible versions in general, but a large section of it dealt with rebutting KJV-onlyism. It had some excellent points about the topic. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name, but if I find it again, I'll post it here.
     
  3. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    If you look at my post, I was not attacking W & H. The question arose about the origins of the KJO- movement. My point of mentioning them and Burgon was as an historical fact about the contention regarding manuscript priority and translation philosophy.

    If you want historical information about earlier text critics, a good place to look is Johann Bengel.

    If you want to know my views on textual critical matters, I will gladly share with you - that has been part of my work for the past 20+ years.
     
  4. kern

    kern Miserere Nobis

    +7
    Catholic
    I guess I didn't write enough in that post -- I wasn't accusing you of attacking W&R, I was just mentioning that as a random side comment. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    -Chris
     
  5. Julie

    Julie ONLY JESUS CHRIST SAVES

    +4
    Christian
     
  6. Susan

    Susan 退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

    +120
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I will look up more on this later and post it, as my computer time is almost up.
    :) Maybe i will get my own computer soon.
     
  7. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    Chris, sorry, it seems as if the misunderstanding was mine. :rolleyes:

    I agree that W & H are "easy targets" for opponents of manuscript/textual study. What's sad is that the approach they advocated is very different from most text critical studies today. Even the groups that favor the Byzantine manuscripts (rather than TR or MT or CT) would be closer to the approach of W & H than to the KJO crowd of today (ala Ruckman, Riplinger).
     
  8. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    Isaiah 45:7 _I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

    If God didn't create evil then who did? Was it on the earth before God created the earth? Did it fall out of the sky one day?(hmmmmmmm) How did the tree get in the garden?? Was that NOT God's creation? Are you saying that Satan created evil? If so...Doesn't Satan need God's permission to walk the earth? Who created Satan??
    Sorry, but i don't see the error in that verse.


    I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.'
    NKJV Copyright 1982 Thomas Nelson

    I am the one who creates the light and makes the darkness. I am the one who sends good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things.
    NLT Copyright 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

    The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity ; I am the LORD who does all these.
    NASB copyright 1995 Lockman Foundation

    I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things.
    RSV copyright info

    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]. Websters

    Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.' Young's

    forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things. Darby

    I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things. ASV

    I form the light, and create darkness; I make shalom, and create evil. I am the LORD, who does all these things.HNV

    formans lucem et creans tenebras faciens pacem et creans malum ego Dominus faciens omnia haec "Vulgate"


    Main Entry: ca·lam·i·ty
    Pronunciation: k&-'la-m&-tE
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
    Etymology: Middle English calamytey, from Middle French calamité, from Latin calamitat-, calamitas; perhaps akin to Latin clades destruction
    Date: 15th century
    1 : a state of deep distress or misery caused by major misfortune or loss
    2 : an extraordinarily grave event marked by great loss and lasting distress and affliction

    Oh and one more thing..
    The word EVIL means....in Hebrew
    07451 ra` {rah}

    from 07489; TWOT - 2191a,2191c

    AV - evil 442, wickedness 59, wicked 25, mischief 21, hurt 20, bad 13,
    trouble 10, sore 9, affliction 6, ill 5, adversity 4, favoured 3,
    harm 3, naught 3, noisome 2, grievous 2, sad 2, misc 34; 663

    adj
    1) bad, evil
    1a) bad, disagreeable

    What else do you suppose it should say?
    GEL
     
  9. kern

    kern Miserere Nobis

    +7
    Catholic
    One thing I notice is that most modern editions of the KJV include the "epistle dedicatory" (that one page thing exalting King James), but omit the lengthy introduction to the reader. Among the things the translators say in that introduction is that no translation is perfect, that it is desirable to have a number of translations out at once (remember that there were already several widely read English translations at the time of the KJV), and that their translation would undoubtedly contain errors.

    I have seen KJV-onlyists attempt to explain this away by saying that the KJV translators did not know they were making an inspired translation, but this seems like a strained explanation to me -- if they didn't know they were making an inspired translation then where do we get that from? How long was it before people figured out that the KJV was inspired, and the Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, Great Bible, Thomas Matthew Bible, and Tyndale Bible were not?

    -Chris
     
  10. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    What is the problem if one believes a bible to be the true inspiried word of God? How does that truley HURT them? Does it effect their salvation because they believe in ONE bible? NO Is it a sin for someone to think that the KJV is the the TRUE word of God? NO! What is the point to this discussion? Does it really matter who believes what bible is the true word of God? All that really matters is that YOUR NOSE is in it everyday reading it and filling yourself spiritually. If someone whats their nose in the KJV and thinks thats the BEST traslation out there, why are people putting a stumbling blocks infront of those who truley want to fill themselves spiritually? Is't a stumbling block a sin?
    Just a thought
    GEL
     
  11. franklin

    franklin Sexed up atheism = Pantheism

    +218
    Atheist
    Private
    http://www.angelfire.com/pr/truth/bibles.html

    Has anyone heard of these Bibles?
    "The Septuagint with Apocrypha" Brenton's edition (Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton), by Hendrickson Publishers. Originally published by Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., London, 1851.
    "Interlinear Greek-English New Testament" (King James Version) with a Greek-English Lexicon and New Testament Synonyms, by George Ricker Berry, published by Baker Books. Originally published by Handy Book Company, Reading Pennsylvania, 1897
     
  12. kern

    kern Miserere Nobis

    +7
    Catholic
    If someone thinks the KJV is the best translation, that's fine. I disagree, and I'll debate them if they want, but they are welcome to that opinion.

    However, if someone thinks that the KJV is the *only* inspired translation, I have to take issue with that. KJV-onlyism is not a cult, but it's a needless fragmenting of a body that is already fragmented enough. We have people telling others that they should not go to "non-KJV churches" because they preach from a flawed scripture. I just don't think statements like that should go unchallenged.

    I also think that the KJV itself can be a stumbling block for some people. There have been several instances on this board where someone tried to use a quotation from the KJV to support a point, but they misunderstood the passage because of old meanings of words. Despite the "4th grade reading level" (or 3rd, or 6th depending on who you talk to), many people have trouble understanding the KJV. If you teach someone that the KJV is the only possible translation they can use, and they have trouble understanding it, that is a stumbling block for them.

    -Chris
     
  13. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    I disagree. NOWAY could reading the bible with the help of the Holy Spirit EVER be a stumbling block to a believer.
    That is about the craziest thing I have ever read on this site yet.
    How can the Word of God be a stumbling block? Are you saying that one who is a babe in Christ that might NOT have the Maturity to discern the truth yet is stumbling? NO I don't think so.
    i think you really need to re-think what you said there kern.
    GEL
     
  14. kern

    kern Miserere Nobis

    +7
    Catholic
    No, I stand by what I said. If someone cannot understand the KJV completely, but you put it in front of them and say "This is the ONLY bible you may read because it is the only 100% correct translation", then you have put a stumbling block in their path. Which would you rather see, someone enjoying the Good News Translation or New Living Translation, or someone struggling to make it through the KJV? The Bible is hard enough to understand without language difficulties further compounding the problem.

    I find the KJV difficult in parts, and I have a college education and an interest in archaic language. Not every Christian even has a high school education, and some know English only as a second language. To force everyone to read this book in 500-year old English (the KJV language was archaic even at the time it was written) is counterproductive.

    I suppose it is not the Bible (even the KJV) that is the stumbling block, it's the insistence on using an old version that is.

    -Chris
     
  15. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    I believe that God can teach anyone to read the bible. Saying that someone "struggles" to read ANY version and to go reading another version that is more watered down is like telling someone, don't educate yourself!
    God gives us what we can handle and leads us where he wants us to be regarless of what version. Reading the KJV is not that hard. Once you start readin it, its like reading anything else. I like the KJV I think it is the best translation out there. You can have your opinion kern, thats fine and dandy for me. But it is just an opinion.
    God Bless
    GEL
     
  16. franklin

    franklin Sexed up atheism = Pantheism

    +218
    Atheist
    Private
    neo, sounds about right, God is the creator of eveything including good and evil! There is plenty of evidence in scripture that says God creates peace and He creates evil, or disaster.... Thus God is the source of "evil" in the sense of being the ultimate permitter of the problems that we have in our lives.
    Hebrews 12:6-11, "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth...If ye endure chastening...afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby."
     
  17. filosofer

    filosofer Senior Veteran

    +287
    Lutheran
    Franklin, I went to the web site you include at the top of this page. Several things stood out about what the person was claiming.

    Two notes on this passage:

    1. The Interlinear Greek English NT is not a transcription: transcription would involve taking the Greek letters and giving English equivalent letters, which the Interlinear does not do.

    2. There are difficulties with claiming that the Septuagint (LXX) is what Jesus and the apostles used. Yes, in many passages there is clear evidence that the LXX is the base for an OT quote. However, there are other places where the base of the quote comes from the Masoretic Text (Hebrew), not the LXX. The reason I refer to the base for the quote is that any time a person translates from one language to another there is never one-to-one correspondence between words.

    Gleason Archer and G. C. Chirichigno (Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey) have identified NT readings which reflect the Hebrew (Masoretic Text) rather than the Septuagint (Rom. 9:17; Matt. 22:24; Matt. 13:35, and many more).



    Again, the web site offers:

    The problem with this statement is that it is impossible to match words from one language to another, word-for-word, especially moving from an inflected language like Greek to a non-inflected language like English. Try to translate a Greek perfect passive participle into English using only one word - can't be done.

    It would appear as if this person has not done much translation, or at best has taken maybe a year of Greek and uses the Interlinear as a crutch to establish his/her point.
     
  18. MissytheButterfly

    MissytheButterfly Back and Better than EVER!

    +5
    Hebrews 12:14 "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." (KJV)

    So I have to say I think you are incorrect about your above statement. The bible clearly shows if you are not holy you will not see the Lord, which in turn means you will not be saved.

    Believers need to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, we are to be holy and acceptable which is our reasonable service. We are not to be conformed to this world but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds..we should be set ourselves apart from it..we are to be holy...(see Romans 12)


    Just something to think about...

    Missy
     
  19. Susan

    Susan 退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

    +120
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I don't really want to debate this here as there is probably a great discussion about this elsewhere (in Soteriology maybe???)
    But I believe that Jesus died in my place for my sins and that His holiness was/is imputed to me because I believe in Him.
    To reduce salvation to our works of holiness is to deny the grace of God to impute HIS righteousness to us.
    Remember Isaiah's statement "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags?"
    So as holy as we can ever be, it's still no good compared to the holiness of Christ. That is the holiness we must pursue, by trust in Him.
    I'm not being antinomian and saying works don't matter in sanctification, I am simply saying that we are saved only by the imputed righteousness/holiness of Jesus Christ.
     
  20. Susan

    Susan 退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

    +120
    Non-Denom
    Single
    US-Democrat
    BTW we show our faith by our works. So works are important.
    However without faith in Jesus Christ and His atonement first, no one is justified. :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...