KJV Alone?

[twin1954]

Greek is one of the most inflected languages, so yes, with case endings, etc. you do not need word order to determine the meaning of the words.

However, the purpose of word order is the ability to move words forward or backward in the sentence to emphasize various points through placement. Since word order doesn't change the meaning as everything points to its verb, case, etc. the word order can be manipulated to emphasize without it disrupting the overall meaning.

Trying to follow a discussion of Greek word order and its meaning for emphasis with an English translation, even an interlinear, would not be overly helpful unless you knew enough Greek to know what they were talking about.

Just making a point that though the translators took great care in their use of word order in the English we cannot totally rely on it in our interpretation of the Scriptures.

 

[John Robie]

modern translators are jealous because God chose the translators of the King James Bible to bring His Word to the English speaking world and He did not respect the intellect and education of modern scholars in order to allow them to help Him. I really do feel sorry for modern translators, but history can't be changed. God doesn't allow it.

How many translators do you know? And when did they tell you of this jealousy? I'd you don't know any of them, or they didn't tell you this, then you are bearing false witness.

 

[tall73]

Just making a point that though the translators took great care in their use of word order in the English we cannot totally rely on it in our interpretation of the Scriptures.

Oh I agree on that point. The word order is absolutely essential for understanding English, and not essential in understanding Greek. And there is no guarantee that all the word order in English represents the thoughts in the Greek text.

That was what I was trying to convey. A lot of folks indicate that the NASB is better because it tries to convey much of the thought structure etc. That is true sometimes, but the KJV does that quite a bit as well. The reality is that you just cannot convey all of that anyway. As you said, words come in a large variety of orders in the Greek because the meaning of the sentence is more based on inflection than order.

 

[graphuto]

If you people believe that God expects all English speaking people to understand Greek and Hebrew, you're straight up stupid.

 

[tall73]

If you people believe that God expects all English speaking people to understand Greek and Hebrew, you're straight up stupid.

Seeing as how we didn't say that, I guess we are not straight up stupid.

However, if you are making a claim as to what translation is the best, then you will have to deal with questions of Greek and Hebrew, because the English Bibles were translated from the Greek and Hebrew.

You can't tell what is the better drawing of a person without looking at the person in question. And you can't tell what is the better translation without looking at what was translated.

 

[twin1954]

If you people believe that God expects all English speaking people to understand Greek and Hebrew, you're straight up stupid.

I think someone needs to work on their reading comprehension. How did you get such a ridiculous idea from anything we said?

BTW, that kind of disrespectful tone is usually not tolerated around here. This isn't some of the other forums you may have posted in where such behavior is common. Respect for fellow posters is the norm here. I have no problem with being blunt but being blunt is not the same as being disrespectful.

If you can make an argument then do so but without the attitude.

 

[tall73]

Not to mention the fact that the KJV translators, being pedobaptist sprinklers, transliterated and coined a new word, baptism, instead of actually translating it.

Just to lend weight to what you speak of, in case it was not obvious that the translators were Anglican, and practiced infant Baptism:

Article XXVII: Of Baptism

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.
The 39 Articles of Religion

Clergy had to subscribe to the 39 articles of Religion.

This Book of Articles before rehearsed, is again approved, and allowed to be holden and executed within the Realm, by the assent and consent of our Sovereign Lady ELIZABETH, by the grace of God, of England, France, and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c. Which Articles were deliberately read, and confirmed again by the subscription of the hands of the Archbishop and Bishops of the Upper-house, and by the subscription of the whole Clergy of the Nether-house in their Convocation, in the Year of our Lord 1571.

Joe conveniently leaves out the numerous theological differences between the Anglican translators of the KJV, when discussing bias and theological problems among translators.

In addition, you can read the sermon of Richard Bancroft, Archbishop and the head of the KJV translation effort arguing with the puritan churches and endorsing a number of non-Baptist viewpoints in his sermon on Feb. 9, 1588.

These range from dictating that pastors should not use novel prayers fitting the situation, but should read their prayers from the common book of prayer, to the queen having an authoritative role in ecclesiastical matters, a rather lengthy diatribe on the three part structure of the church whereby the local clergy must submit to Bishops, and a statement that he accepts the first four ecumenical councils. This of course includes Chalcedon, which notes:

According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.

Joe didn't seem to thrilled with the theotokos/mother of God title in the veneration of Mary thread. Yet he doesn't seem to have a problem with the head of the KJV translation project accepting the council that solidified the title.

 

[John Robie]

I'd still be interested to see and missing doctrines from a modern version.

 

[kiwimac]

I'd still be interested to see and missing doctrines from a modern version.

As there are none, you'll be waiting a while I think.

 

[John Robie]

As there are none, you'll be waiting a while I think.

Probably. But I like to remind folks of the point. [emoji4]

 

[graphuto]

Please forgive me for being so rude. That was uncalled for. I get really caught up and passionate about my beliefs, and sometimes cross the line when talking to people.

How about Deut 22:28 where lots of modern versions condone rape?

 

[John Robie]

How about Deut 22:28 where lots of modern versions condone rape?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Yes, huge difference.

Doh!

 

[graphuto]

It IS a huge difference because the Bible already specifies what happens to a rapist 3 verses beforehand :
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire BibleIf a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed,.... That is, meets with one in a field, which is not espoused to a man; and the man is supposed to be an unmarried man, as appears by what follows: and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deuteronomy 22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exodus 22:16 but not without her consent:

 

[John Robie]

It IS a huge difference because the Bible already specifies what happens to a rapist 3 verses beforehand :
25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

One is betrothed. The other isn't.

Anything else?

 

[graphuto]

and lay hold on her, and lie with her, she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deuteronomy 22:25 where a different word from this is there used

 

[graphuto]

So are you saying it's OK to rape a virgin, but if they're betrothed it's the death penalty? Hmm...

 

[John Robie]

So are you saying it's OK to rape a virgin, but if they're betrothed it's the death penalty? Hmm...

I'm telling you that one says betrothed and the other doesn't. The text is very specific. So your issue is not with me.

 

[graphuto]

My issue is with modern versions that change and pervert and confuse the word of God.

Any particular reason you guys are such fans of modern versions and seem to hate the KJV?

 

[John Robie]

My issue is with modern versions that change and pervert and confuse the word of God.

Any particular reason you guys are such fans of modern versions and seem to hate the KJV?

I don't hate the KJV. I've just asked what doctrines are missing from the modern translations. And I'm still waiting.

 

[graphuto]

If you're not for something, you're against it.