King James Version
- Thread starter Hector Medina
- Start date
- Status
Susan
退屈させた1 つ (bored one)
- Feb 16, 2002
- 9,292
- 124
- 40
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Or words in Chinese or Spanish?
I know people who read Bibles in these languages. (One is an American who wants to do missions work in Latin America and does devotions in both Spanish and English to remember the Spanish language.) I don't think that makes them any less of a Christian than the most devoted KJV Only person.
BTW another question. Why do some KJV Only people denounce the "Wycliffe Bible Translators?" I have met some of these missionaries (who attend my church when they're home) and they do not appear to be perverting the Word of God for gain or for any reason.
However I have heard some KJV only people say that they are boycotting them and denounce them in the most condemnatory of terms because they :
1: Do not teach classes on KJV English rather than translating the Bible into, say, some remote native dialect in Brazil or Thailand. or
2: Do not translate all foreign language versions from the 1611 KJV.
To me this whole KJV debate appears to be "straining at gnats while swallowing camels." I mean, there are so many people who don't even have the Word of God in their language yet or who are persecuted for possessing it.
I know people who read Bibles in these languages. (One is an American who wants to do missions work in Latin America and does devotions in both Spanish and English to remember the Spanish language.) I don't think that makes them any less of a Christian than the most devoted KJV Only person.
BTW another question. Why do some KJV Only people denounce the "Wycliffe Bible Translators?" I have met some of these missionaries (who attend my church when they're home) and they do not appear to be perverting the Word of God for gain or for any reason.
However I have heard some KJV only people say that they are boycotting them and denounce them in the most condemnatory of terms because they :
1: Do not teach classes on KJV English rather than translating the Bible into, say, some remote native dialect in Brazil or Thailand. or
2: Do not translate all foreign language versions from the 1611 KJV.
To me this whole KJV debate appears to be "straining at gnats while swallowing camels." I mean, there are so many people who don't even have the Word of God in their language yet or who are persecuted for possessing it.
Upvote
0
I think the real issue with the KJV is not whether the modern versions are incorrect, Satanic or whatever, but why the KJV, and only the KJV1611 is correct. The big question, IMO, is why not the earlier versions? Why would God choose one version, made at a relatively late period of the Christian church, and none before or after it, to be correct? And why only in English? I love my language, but what's so special about it compared to Spanish, or Chinese, or Tagalog or any other language?
The only answer I've ever seen about this was the utterly ridiculous argument that because the arbiter of world time is Greenwich (GMT), that therefore England reigns supreme!!! (Ruckman said that). His other argument was that English was at its finest in 1611 - which is rather subjective, I mean, he may prefer Early Modern English, but I prefer Middle English to that - does that mean one is "better" and "more godly" than the other? I wouldn't say so.
Do any KJVOs here have any better arguments than those of Ruckman?
The only answer I've ever seen about this was the utterly ridiculous argument that because the arbiter of world time is Greenwich (GMT), that therefore England reigns supreme!!! (Ruckman said that). His other argument was that English was at its finest in 1611 - which is rather subjective, I mean, he may prefer Early Modern English, but I prefer Middle English to that - does that mean one is "better" and "more godly" than the other? I wouldn't say so.
Do any KJVOs here have any better arguments than those of Ruckman?
Upvote
0
We(KJV Bible Believers) simply believe that God has not given us a multitude of contradictory authorities.
Bible believers preach and teach against the different versions and those who think Christians should be encouraged to pick and choose their favorite rendering, abandoning the one book that has shaped Christian character for centuries.
One can easily see why passions run high when Bible believers are likened to a cult and called heretics.
Today the Bible has ceased to be the last word for most Christians. They want to know what another version says. Or, if they do not like what they read, they assume that it is a bad translation. So, instead of the word of God correcting us, we correct the word of God. In the minds of todays Christians, the Bible has ceased to be a solid substance that can be checked as an absolute authority. Rather, it has become a process that is always becoming but never quite arrives. The real authority becomes the scholar who tells us what the passage really means.
Bible believers preach and teach against the different versions and those who think Christians should be encouraged to pick and choose their favorite rendering, abandoning the one book that has shaped Christian character for centuries.
One can easily see why passions run high when Bible believers are likened to a cult and called heretics.
Today the Bible has ceased to be the last word for most Christians. They want to know what another version says. Or, if they do not like what they read, they assume that it is a bad translation. So, instead of the word of God correcting us, we correct the word of God. In the minds of todays Christians, the Bible has ceased to be a solid substance that can be checked as an absolute authority. Rather, it has become a process that is always becoming but never quite arrives. The real authority becomes the scholar who tells us what the passage really means.
Upvote
0
But, Julie, if it was wrong for modern translators to make a new translation of the Bible now, why wasn't it wrong for the KJV translators to make a new translation then? If there were no previous translations into English of the Bible, then your argument might work, but there were quite a few, not just into recognisable English, but into earlier forms as well.
Upvote
0
You miss the point, God has not given us a multitude of contradictory authorities.
Things that are different are NOT the same.
Things that are different are NOT the same.
Upvote
0
But earlier versions of the Bible were also different to the KJV. So is the KJV then a contradictory "authority" to those versions?
Upvote
0
Blessed-one
a long journey ahead
um, a bible, which, when translated, is the closest to the original meaning (Hebrew) would be the one to go.
such as comparing chinese and english, chinese translation does the word more justice than english and vice versa for other verses. Language problem!
such as comparing chinese and english, chinese translation does the word more justice than english and vice versa for other verses. Language problem!
Upvote
0
Remember that pharisees took the letter of the law and missed the meaning of the message. I believe we can do the same with the Word of God. The Bible is threaded together in harmony as a message from God to His believers. The bible was written in 3 languages by over 40 authors and remains internally consistent throughout the span of 1600 yrs. I find that despite translation variants the meaning of God's message is consistent. Awesome God.
Upvote
0
Thunderchild
Sheep in Wolf's clothing
Is because the AKJV is not as readily understood now as it was in 1611. Therefore, it is possible to make it seem to say things that it doesn't more easily than can be done with a more current language version.
It is also to be noted that the AKJV translators DID see fit to alter the translation of a passage where the original was clearly in error... changing 2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam. to And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam.
And of course NOT changing the heights recorded for the pillars Jachin and Boaz, nor the heights of the capitals (chapiters) thereof, which are just as clearly erroneous in the originals.
Then they changed the meaning of "god-fearing" to "too superstitious" in the passage regarding Paul's speech at the Areopagus, as recorded in Acts.
It is also to be noted that the AKJV translators DID see fit to alter the translation of a passage where the original was clearly in error... changing 2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam. to And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear [was] like a weaver's beam.
And of course NOT changing the heights recorded for the pillars Jachin and Boaz, nor the heights of the capitals (chapiters) thereof, which are just as clearly erroneous in the originals.
Then they changed the meaning of "god-fearing" to "too superstitious" in the passage regarding Paul's speech at the Areopagus, as recorded in Acts.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Modern scholars talk as if God died when the New Testament canon was completed. God not only gave the Scriptures, He watched over them to preserve faithful copies and He called and oversaw the translators of our KJV. He is watching over His word right now.
Scripture- Psalm 12:6,7 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.
Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
John 17:8 I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me
1Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
My position is that God knows what a faithful translation looks like and God knows what He wrote in the originals. He has given all of this to us in the KJV . Modern scholarship simply doubts this, but can prove nothing.
Scripture- Psalm 12:6,7 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.
Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
John 17:8 I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me
1Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
My position is that God knows what a faithful translation looks like and God knows what He wrote in the originals. He has given all of this to us in the KJV . Modern scholarship simply doubts this, but can prove nothing.
Upvote
0
The KJV in the NT is basically translated from the Textus Receptus (TR), except for a few verses in Revelation that come from the Latin Vulgate (no Greek manuscripts supported those readings at the time). But what is the TR? There is no manuscript that is the TR, because no two manuscripts agree completely. So before 1611, how could you claim that there was "one" Bible (and only one) that was correct?
Unless you claim that the KJV is the inspired Bible and none of the Greek manuscripts were inspired. But then you still have the gap from the first century to 1611 without a relaible Bible.
Unless you claim that the KJV is the inspired Bible and none of the Greek manuscripts were inspired. But then you still have the gap from the first century to 1611 without a relaible Bible.
Upvote
0
Julie,
The question is not whether the KJV is a good translation or not - though that is part of the KJVO argument - but why it was necessary, given this argument that there can be only one "God-inspired" translation, to create another translation i.e. the KJV?
Did no one before the KJV have the Word of God? Either the people who read Greek, or those who read Latin, Old English, and the other translations - Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Bishops' Bible? Why was it necessary to make yet another translation - the KJV - when there were translations in English already available? If it is wrong to create new and improved Bible translations now, why was it ok for that to be done in 1611?
The question is not whether the KJV is a good translation or not - though that is part of the KJVO argument - but why it was necessary, given this argument that there can be only one "God-inspired" translation, to create another translation i.e. the KJV?
Did no one before the KJV have the Word of God? Either the people who read Greek, or those who read Latin, Old English, and the other translations - Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Bishops' Bible? Why was it necessary to make yet another translation - the KJV - when there were translations in English already available? If it is wrong to create new and improved Bible translations now, why was it ok for that to be done in 1611?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It is ludicrous to liken the use of the modern versions today to the King James translators use of versions that preceded the KJB. The King James Bible translators were not referring to versions that had a totally different foundation (ie. a totally different set of manuscripts as their underlying foundation). The fourteen rules of translation provided to the King James translators list the six previous editions to which they referred in their preface. The fourteenth rule names the six English translations considered by the KJB translation committee as true predecessors of the King James Bible.
The translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops Bible are the Tyndale Bible, Matthew Bible, Coverdale Bible, Whitchurch Bible (which is also known as the Cranmers or Great Bible printed by Whitchurch), and the Geneva Bible. These rules also show that justification exists for excluding the Catholic Douay Rheims Version and the Wycliffe Bible from the foundational versions. These six versions also form the basis for application of Psalm 12:6-7 to the King James Bible. It was the seventh version purified seven times following the six in bold above.
The translators said that those versions that preceded the King James Bible had imperfections and blemishes. I agree. However, these imperfections and blemishes are not the lies and heretical doctrines found in the modern versions of today.
The translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops Bible are the Tyndale Bible, Matthew Bible, Coverdale Bible, Whitchurch Bible (which is also known as the Cranmers or Great Bible printed by Whitchurch), and the Geneva Bible. These rules also show that justification exists for excluding the Catholic Douay Rheims Version and the Wycliffe Bible from the foundational versions. These six versions also form the basis for application of Psalm 12:6-7 to the King James Bible. It was the seventh version purified seven times following the six in bold above.
The translators said that those versions that preceded the King James Bible had imperfections and blemishes. I agree. However, these imperfections and blemishes are not the lies and heretical doctrines found in the modern versions of today.
Upvote
0
I guess I'm confused. I thought that the claim was that the KJV was the ultimate authority. But now it is the 14 rules that the KJV must submit to. So is the ultimate authority the 14 rules?
No kidding? Heretical doctrines? Wow. Arrogance breeds judgmentalism. Interesting that the major cults of today had used the KJV as the basis for their heresies.
Well, thanks, but no thanks, Julie. Accusations of "heretical doctrines" is just too far. Looks like discussion is closed. Have a good life in your nonexistent dream world.
No kidding? Heretical doctrines? Wow. Arrogance breeds judgmentalism. Interesting that the major cults of today had used the KJV as the basis for their heresies.
Well, thanks, but no thanks, Julie. Accusations of "heretical doctrines" is just too far. Looks like discussion is closed. Have a good life in your nonexistent dream world.
Upvote
0
"I guess I'm confused."
That is what multiple authorities produces.
1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Modern scholars talk as if God died when the New Testament canon was completed. God not only gave the Scriptures, He watched over them to preserve faithful copies and He called and oversaw the translators of our KJV. He is watching over His word right now.
Scripture- Psalm 12:6,7 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.
Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
John 17:8 I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me
1Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
My position is that God knows what a faithful translation looks like and God knows what He wrote in the originals. He has given all of this to us in the KJV . Modern scholarship simply doubts this, but can prove nothing.
That is what multiple authorities produces.
1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Modern scholars talk as if God died when the New Testament canon was completed. God not only gave the Scriptures, He watched over them to preserve faithful copies and He called and oversaw the translators of our KJV. He is watching over His word right now.
Scripture- Psalm 12:6,7 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.
Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
John 17:8 I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me
1Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
My position is that God knows what a faithful translation looks like and God knows what He wrote in the originals. He has given all of this to us in the KJV . Modern scholarship simply doubts this, but can prove nothing.
Upvote
0
Thunderchild
Sheep in Wolf's clothing
And those same translators also denied that the version they had produced was perfect, saying that it was the best that they could devise.
Name one? Show that there is a verifiable difference between the modern translations of the Bible and the AKJV as its meanings were readily understood in 1611. Show that the changes made IN REALITY alter the meanings of the passages in question. And answer to why AKJV translators ignored the original texts of 2 Samuel 21:19, adding "the brother of" to the verse - words that came from no available manuscript - Septuagint, Latin Vulgate nor Hebrew.
There ARE no completely faithful copies of the original manuscripts, dimness - the claim that such documents exist is a lie. Bibles' translators now, as always, use the best possible reconstructed text.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Julie,
I've been reading the preface in the facsimilie edition of the KJV of 1611, and, aside from calling the Bishops' Bible "a most corrupted translation", this I found interesting:
However, again I must ask you, Julie, why would God decide that no one would have the Word of God until 1611? And why would he then decide to make the Word of God not be translated from the Greek and Hebrew but from previous English versions, if what you are saying is correct?
-Divinus
I've been reading the preface in the facsimilie edition of the KJV of 1611, and, aside from calling the Bishops' Bible "a most corrupted translation", this I found interesting:
However, again I must ask you, Julie, why would God decide that no one would have the Word of God until 1611? And why would he then decide to make the Word of God not be translated from the Greek and Hebrew but from previous English versions, if what you are saying is correct?
-Divinus
Upvote
0
- Status
