• 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.

Understanding the KJV

Discussion in 'Baptists' started by 1watchman, Mar 9, 2014.

  1. davidbrainerd

    davidbrainerd Newbie

    28
    +0
    Christian
    And as concerning "a stark contradiction" when I read in your precious NIV:

    Matt 5:22 "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment...."

    Ephesians 4:26 "In your anger do not sin...."

    This is much worse than a word having a double meaning. Because how did they arrive at this contradiction where they make Jesus call anger itself a sin while Paul says you can be angry and yet not sin in your anger. How did they botch this up?

    They removed the words "without a cause" in Matt 5:22 because two or three junk manuscripts found in Egyptian trash dumps left them off.

    AND WHAT'S WORSE is they don't even have the decency to tell you this! Whereas the amazingly awesome NRSV does in a footnote saying "other ancient authorities add without cause." Thanks NIV liars for just removing the words and not even telling us like the wonderful and honest folks at the NRSV did.

    Ok, actually, I looked again, and the NIV does have a footnote too. I just missed it because they split the note for the verse into 3 notes, and it was in the second one, whereas in the NRSV it was in the first one.
     
  2. 98cwitr

    98cwitr Lord forgive me Staff Member Red Team - Moderator Supporter

    +1,355
    Baptist
    Married
    Raised with the language of twisting words and not taking things for face value? I totally agree with your last two sentences :thumbsup:
     
  3. davidbrainerd

    davidbrainerd Newbie

    28
    +0
    Christian
    Well, you're pretty certain to be raised with that to one degree or another no matter what translation you're raised on. For example, if you're raised Baptist, there's no way they're going to take the KJV's command to be baptized "for the remission of sins" at face value, and there's no way they'll take the NIV's be baptized "for the forgiveness of your sins" at face value. (Acts 2:38) They'll quickly tell you that baptism isn't for the forgiveness of sins, that sins are forgiven long before baptism, and baptism is purely optional. And the next phrase "And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Why, they'll tell you, that's just absurd; you receive the Holy Spirit as soon as you believe, not when you're baptized.

    Anyway, I'm glad we agree that modern translations are necessary and that they shouldn't remove verse.
     
  4. 98cwitr

    98cwitr Lord forgive me Staff Member Red Team - Moderator Supporter

    +1,355
    Baptist
    Married
    I also agree with your views of water Baptism. :thumbsup: I subject that those verses refer to the Baptism of the Spirit, as opposed to water. jm2c.
     
  5. SwordoftheLord

    SwordoftheLord Defender of the Faith

    +270
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian

    Granville Sharp Construction? Come on now, that is a laughable argument that have been proven before to be garbage when trying to use it as you did to say the KJV is inerferior to any modern version.. Wish people would actually study and do some research before posting trying to use the sharp method as a basis to show the kjv is inferior.

    The KJV translators were above and beyond the translators we have now, but I dont use that to prove the newer version are inferior to the KJV.
     
  6. BBAS 64

    BBAS 64 Contributor Supporter

    +740
    Christian
    Married
    Good day,

    I do not believe that was used to show that it is inferior, but to show how far the science of translation has come in history.

    I like the KJV translators bunch of church of England Calvinist, who translated to get the bible in the current language. Even quoted Augustine's view on the translation issue, and they understood the fact that more translations would be needed in the future...


    Above and beyond..... not sure what standard you are using in your judgment.

    What is not to like about them, I only wish they had more texts to use other than the three they had. I am not so keen on the Latin used to determine translation of Greek words not so sure they should have done that, to error is human.

    They did get the sharp's rule wrong (in one place) as well, but that was a later development as already stated.

    In Him,

    Bill
     
  7. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +8,255
    Anabaptist
    PING! (A light went on) :) "Love not the world, nor the things of the world" INCLUDES all and every worldly translation and all and every worldly interpretation (any and all of the flesh) .

    Those called by God, chosen as it is written before the creation of the world,
    receive from God the Truth.

    A new heart, a new spirit, a new and renewed mind in Christ Jesus.

    After, "AFTER", receiving new life, revelation, truth, from God,

    then and only then can anything of His Kingdom, Himself, His Son,

    be understood at all . Comprehended. Grasped and accepted.

    SEEK HIM WHILE HE MAY BE FOUND. SEEK HIM. SEEK HIM. SEEK HIM> HE DELIGHTS IN THOSE WHO TRUST HIM and HE is GLAD TO CALL US HIS CHILDREN! YES! in CHRIST JESUS! YES!

     
  8. davidbrainerd

    davidbrainerd Newbie

    28
    +0
    Christian
    I didn't state my views. However, its obvious that Acts 2:38 cannot be referring to baptism in the Spirit, as you cannot really command someone to be baptized in the Spirit. Your claim here simply proves that altering definitions is alive and well, and the KJV is not to blame for it.
     
  9. davidbrainerd

    davidbrainerd Newbie

    28
    +0
    Christian
    Which verse are you referring to?
     
  10. davidbrainerd

    davidbrainerd Newbie

    28
    +0
    Christian
    In any case, I think in all likelihood the Granville Sharp Construction was operative in English in 1611. After all, that other construction "and...and" instead of "both....and" was used in English at the time. Just because modern English doesn't have a construction doesn't mean Elizabethan didn't. There would be no need for the KJV translators to change the Granville Sharp Construction in Greek to something else in English if English in their time had the same construction. (Duh!)
     
  11. now faith

    now faith Veteran Supporter

    +1,313
    Word of Faith
    Married
    What is the general consensus here of Hort and Westcott?

    We have stated the King James translators were of Calvinist persuasion.

    What back ground did Hort and Westcott have?
     
  12. Keachian

    Keachian On Sabbatical

    +242
    Baptist
    Single
    They were Anglican, there were from recollection both churchmen from the Reformed wing and the Catholic wing of the Anglican Church.

    Also Anglican, contrary to KJVO rhetoric and quotemining.
     
  13. Boidae

    Boidae Senior Veteran

    +361
    United States
    Lutheran
    Divorced
    US-Others
    I actually went out and got a KJ version of the Bible a couple days ago. It's a non-study one, so it's nearly bare bones. It is a reference Bible though.

    At this point, with me not even sure that I am or have been a Christian for the past 5 years, I want to go back to simplicity. I also want to try a different Bible, as I have the ESV, the NKJV, the NIV and the HCSB. I am trying something different since doing the same thing over and over again has not had the desired results.

    In an interest to disclose the whole truth of the matter currently, I am also staying away from church for the time being. I have grown weary of institutionalized Christianity, and it's done is bring me confusion and doubt. This is also part of my simplicity approach. I am going to use this time to strengthen my relationship with the Lord.

    So I am excited to start reading from my new Bible and will do so starting on the first of April.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2014
  14. now faith

    now faith Veteran Supporter

    +1,313
    Word of Faith
    Married
    All of the multiple commentary on their religious stance is king James rhetoric ?

    Life is bliss just drink the kool aid
     
  15. Keachian

    Keachian On Sabbatical

    +242
    Baptist
    Single
    If kool aid here means historical accuracy I'm all for it. You want to give your view and some references?
     
  16. davidbrainerd

    davidbrainerd Newbie

    28
    +0
    Christian
    Some of the extremely rabid KJVOs obscure the issue with Westcott and Hort by personal attacks about their belief in Ghosts and so on. The real issue with them was their textual theory. I read the article or whatever it was where they put forth their theory once before. The theory is basically that the church of the fourth century standardized the text of the New Testament around 350 AD or so and that this is where the Byzantine text-form came from. But since they don't trust the fourth century church (why they don't is not made clear) therefore this standard text is evil. So, therefore, they say we must scour the earth and dig up every Egyptian trash dump in existence to find every scrap of supposedly pre-4th-century papyrus to reconstruct what the New Testament said before the 4th century.

    Its not Westcott and Hort themselves that are the problem, but those who carried on their theory, namely the guys behind the Nestle-Aland/UBS texts. They've modified the theory slightly, but its still basically the same theory.

    But if the 4th century church standardized the text, they must have had a reason. Like, for example, that lots of bad and disagreeing manuscripts were floating around (the very manuscripts that Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Aland, and friends, have based their editions on).

    The truth is, We need a standardized text. Who should we trust to standardize it? I personally think the 4th century church could do as good of, if not a better job, than Westcott and Hort, Nestle-Aland, and the rest of the modern gurus.

    So the fact is, you can agree with the basic gist of the WH theory (that the Byzantine text-form is not the original text per se but is a standardization done in the 4th century by the church) and yet disagree with their conclusion (that this text is not good enough and we need them to create a new one for us). I can accept that the Byzantine text IS a standardization done by the fourth century church, and I can still trust it a billion times more than the standardization (or 28 different standardizations) created by Nestle-Aland.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2014
  17. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +612
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    The Trinitarian Bible Society has been a promoter of the King-James-Version-Only movement.

    Therefore, it is natural that it would want to promote the KJV as a superior translation.
     
  18. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +612
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    Genesis 22:1:
    English Standard Version
    After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.”

    King James Bible
    And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
    James 1:13:
    English Standard Version
    Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.

    King James Bible
    Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
    I can see the possible issues you might have with Gen 22:1, but what's the problem with Jas 1:13?
     
  19. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +612
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2014
  20. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    +612
    Australia
    Baptist
    Private
    I think we are thinking too narrowly. I suggest to us that we consider the rest of the world before investing one more cent in another English translation.

    The task of Bible translation is an enormous one and here we are arguing over the KJV vs ESV, NLT, NIV, etc. These are some of the language and translation challenges in our world.

    The British Council provides this information about English speakers:

    How many people speak English?
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG] English has official or special status in at least seventy five countries with a total population of over two billion;
    [​IMG] English is spoken as a first language by around 375 million and as a second language by around 375 million speakers in the world;
    [​IMG] speakers of English as a second language probably outnumber those who speak it as a first language;
    [​IMG] around 750 million people are believed to speak English as a foreign language
    [​IMG] one out of four of the world's population speak English to some level of competence; demand from the other three-quarters is increasing.

    However, of the 375 million people who use English as their first language, what percentage is that of the world's population? The world population clock, which I have just checked online, says that the world's population is 7.222 billion people.

    Therefore, 5.357% of the world speak English as their first language. And here we are arguing about an archaic vs contemporary English translations.

    According to Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) of Wycliffe Bible Translators,

    • 'Nearly two-thirds of the world's 875 million illiterate people are women' (SIL);
    • The Worldwide Status of Bible Translation (2013) is:
      [​IMG] 6,900+ ... the number of languages spoken in the world today.
      [​IMG]1,999+ ...the number of languages without any of the Bible, but with a possible need of a Bible translation to begin.
      [​IMG] 2,167 ...the total number of current translation programs around the world, on behalf of 1.9 billion people.
    So there are still 1900+ languages in the world today that don't have any Bible translation available. And of the 7 billion people in the world there are 875 million who are illiterate. This means that when Wycliffe and associate organisations develop a language in print and translate the Bible, they have to teach the people to read and write. This is a massive task.

    Oz
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2014
Loading...