Which translation do you use and why?

[Edial]

Some of you folks weary me - but I'm getting used to it. I've heard this for years. Where did you get the idea that I said only the English could be used?

Now, a lesson in forum etiquet and history - You could have asked: "Interesting, but how does the above statement apply to other folks in other non-English speaking nations?"

I would have responded respectfully with: "Thank you for you question." and then answered.

I never said the word of God could not be found in other languages. I said I believed the "standard" would be in English. If your foreign translation was based upon the English AV or the Greek/Hebrew texts that are the foundation of the AV then God blesses these and many a foreign translation has come by this method.

If one were to study church history then they would find foreign versions all over the world priior to the AV1611 but they were from the texts that the AV1611 eventually came from - not the manuscripts that came out of Egpyt where all the modern versions came from.

Real simple - when a missionary went to the foreign field during the last centuries they took with them a King James Biblle and used that or the Greek/Hebrew texts it came from to make their Chinese, Tahitian, etc. translation from and it worked fine. Sometimes the missioinary would just preach from the English AV while one interpreted and God blessed that.

I trust that explains my position somewhat.

God bless

Your position is presented perfectly. It is even explained.
But one thing you did not answer.

If the original Scriptures are inspired and the copies of them (the manuscripts from which the KJV was translated) differs from the originals in about 0.5% (some name misspells and numbers) and the Inspiration includes inerrancy in the Protestant's understanding, how can you say that God inspired BOTH of them when they CONTRADICT each other, even in the manute way?
Since we know that God cannot contradict himself in any way, do you realize that your reasoning presents that God can?

And since the KJV (English language) is losing singnificant words and depths and meanings of words due to translation, its similarity to the original autographs is further compromised, since it was not even translated from them?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Oblio]

If your foreign translation was based upon the English AV or the Greek/Hebrew texts that are the foundation of the AV then God blesses these and many a foreign translation has come by this method.

Why do they need to be the particular textes that the KJV spawned from ??

Real simple - when a missionary went to the foreign field during the last centuries they took with them a King James Biblle and used that or the Greek/Hebrew texts it came from to make their Chinese, Tahitian, etc. translation from and it worked fine. Sometimes the missioinary would just preach from the English AV while one interpreted and God blessed that.

Or sometimes they game directly from the Greek (c.f. Ss. Cyril/Methodius) and a new alphabet was created (Cyrillic) to Evangelize the Slavic people or Slavonic when St. Innocent (Apostle to America and all Asia) Evangelized North America and created an alphabet to spread the Gospel in North America.

The Russian Church (without the KJV) has evangelized much of the East, including China and Korea in modern times. Most of the spread of Christianity in the East occurred 500 years before the first Protestant (and the KJV) was born.

 

[Oblio]

And since the KJV (English language) is losing singnificant words and depths and meanings of words due to translation, its similarity to the original autographs is further compromised, since it was not even translated from them?

This is indeed a problem, along with the fact that there are so may different translations/interpretations among the English speaking world (the KJV being one of many). A Russian or Greek does not have this problem, for there is only one Bible.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. Why do they need to be the particular textes that the KJV spawned from ??

2. Or sometimes they game directly from the Greek (c.f. Ss. Cyril/Methodius) and a new alphabet was created (Cyrillic) to Evangelize the Slavic people or Slavonic when St. Innocent (Apostle to America and all Asia) Evangelized North America and created an alphabet to spread the Gospel in North America.

3. The Russian Church (without the KJV) has evangelized much of the East, including China and Korea in modern times. Most of the spread of Christianity in the East occurred 500 years before the first Protestant (and the KJV) was born.

1. Because the texts the AV came from came from Asia Minor (right line) not the ones that came from Egpyt from the 3rd century (wrong line). God blessed the Asia Minor line while the line from Egypt has been a flop.

2. The versions can and did come "directly from the Greek" - the right Greek line from Antioch and Asia Minor.

3. Not doubting this - but if there was "true" evangelism then it came from the right texts - not the ones that orginated from Egypt.

Again - God has his blessing on the texts from Asia Minor (1st century) not the Egyptian (3rd century). If you have a Bible from the right line then you are safe. If you have a bible from the wrong line (Egypt) then toss it.

Before 1611 God used many translations mightily as long as they came from the right line. Since 1611 I believe the standard is the English 1611 and if your version comes from that one or the texts it came from then you are safe.

I do not know how to make it any clearer.

God bless

God bless

 

[Oblio]

I do not know how to make it any clearer.

I think you have made it clear that it is your opinion that salvation is of the KJV, and any other pedigree is of the Devil. IMO, stating that evangelization is only true if it came from your favorite 'only God inspired texts' is pure rubbish. First, because I have seen no proof that the KJV pedigree is somehow superior or more God inspired, and second, because evangelization and salvation is not from the Bible but from Christ. Every copy of Holy Scripture could be wiped from the earth, and we could still spread the Gospel, we could still recreate and spread the Revelation of God to man, because it is not the Bible (KJV or otherwise) that does this but the Church.

 

[PaladinValer]

Oblio, just for you to know, we Anglicans have no link to what they believe. The KJV hasn't been the sole AV in our church since the RV, which is also a AV.

 

[Oblio]

Oblio, just for you to know, we Anglicans have no link to what they believe. The KJV hasn't been the sole AV in our church since the RV, which is also a AV.

, a poor choice of terms on my part, I meant it in the secular sense of Anglican (pertaining to things English) and did not mean to confuse it with your Church

 

[PaladinValer]

I knew what you meant, Oblio, so no harm done at all my friend. I mentioned it only because it was, as I stated early, it was under the auspecies of my church that the KJV was translated and declared an AV of. We have many AVs now, including the RV, NJB, NRSV, and, when it is finished, probably your OSB will eventually make the AV list

 

[AVBunyan]

1. I think you have made it clear that it is your opinion that salvation is of the KJV, and any other pedigree is of the Devil.

2. IMO, stating that evangelization is only true if it came from your favorite 'only God inspired texts' is pure rubbish.

3. First, because I have seen no proof that the KJV pedigree is somehow superior or more God inspired, and

4. second, because evangelization and salvation is not from the Bible but from Christ.

5. Every copy of Holy Scripture could be wiped from the earth, and we could still spread the Gospel, we could still recreate and spread the Revelation of God to man, because it is not the Bible (KJV or otherwise) that does this but the Church.

1. You've got my view right - just check out the witness of history. Just follow the two lines of bibles (Asia Minor and Egypt).

2. You can call it rubbish all you want. For you to say that just shows your apparrent improper estimation of the power of God's words. Your calling my view "bubbish" is the world's thinking on the matter so you should feel quite safe and secure knowing you are in agreement with both the lost world and the majority of "modern day" christianity. I'll stick with the minority view here - safer.

3. It appears you do not see the two distinct lines of Bibles and the peculiar histories that are associated with them. I cannot help you - it takes study and an open mind.

4. You are sadly mistaken my friend. Yes, Christ is the source but Christ speaks through His word - Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God - Romans. How do you know what Christ is saying unless you have His words? I maintain that if you do not have God's written words then God is not speaking to you. I do not believe that God speaks to you audibly today.

5. Your thinking is this new thinking that the "message" is the word of God not the "very words of God". I respectfully suggest you read what the scriptures say about itself and then you tell me. If you were to wipe out the written word then you had better use the written words that you have hidden in your heart for without them your "message" will have little power. When Christ spoke to the Pharisees it many times said, "It is written."

Your thinking is in line with the modern thinking. I'll stick with the old thinking when saints looked to the written word to hear God speak to them.

God bless

 

[Oblio]

Your thinking is in line with the modern thinking. I'll stick with the old thinking when saints looked to the written word to hear God speak to them.

You'll have to try harder than that to offend me. Though I do find it ironic that a post Reformation Baptist would tell an Orthodox Christian that their thinking is modern and that they choose to stick with 'old thinking'

 

[AVBunyan]

You'll have to try harder than that to offend me. Though I do find it ironic that a post Reformation Baptist would tell an Orthodox Christian that their thinking is modern and that they choose to stick with 'old thinking'

Please understand that my purpose with that statement was not to offend but to creat some examination of our reasoning here regarding this issue. If I came across that way then I do sincerely apologize for I know I can get a bit smartt-mouthed and my talk can be un-Christian like - I'm seeking to make reform in this area.

In the area of Biblical authority it appears your thinking is of the modern persuasion - though other areas you most likely are not.

God bless

 

[AVBunyan]

You'll have to try harder than that to offend me. Though I do find it ironic that a post Reformation Baptist would tell an Orthodox Christian that their thinking is modern and that they choose to stick with 'old thinking'

Another thought - Oblio, I believe we all have been influenced by modern thinkin some way or another in our walk these days. I am guilty of some modern thinking and influences in areas of my life. I'm seeking to find these out and correct them as God shows them to me. Oftentimes I kick against the pricks when God shows me and when I do kick against the pricks it is much to my shame.

God bless

 

[Oblio]

Please understand that my purpose with that statement was not to offend but to creat some examination of our reasoning here regarding this issue. If I came across that way then I do sincerely apologize for I know I can get a bit smartt-mouthed and my talk can be un-Christian like - I'm seeking to make reform in this area.

In the area of Biblical authority it appears your thinking is of the modern persuasion - though other areas you most likely are not.

God bless

Hmmm, perhaps I was overly sensitive on the issue of the antiquity of my beliefs. I thank you for your apology You can rest assured that I try to hold to the beliefs and thinkings of the Church Fathers and the NT Church (as all Orthodox should strive to do), I will of course be wary of straying from that path.

 

[Borealis]

The Catholic Church decided to insert these book and pronounce them "inspired of God" after Martin Luther questioned their decision to pray for the dead and asked for Scriptural references. Since their only reference is found in one of these book (the Maccabees) and the revenue from masses was to be lost they decided to elevate these books to a level of "divine inspiration" despite of plain and glaring historical errors that appear in these books.
(One of the tests for the inclusion in the divine inspirations was an absolute absence of any historical errors. There are othere tests, of course)
(Some traditional churches also have these books inserted, but only the Catholics elevated them to the God-breathed level).

Sorry, but I just have to step in here and correct these egregious errors.

First of all, the Catholic Church did include the Deuterocanonical books in the Bible...eleven hundred years before Martin Luther was a twinkle in his daddy's eye. Luther REMOVED those books because they contradicted HIS version of theology. HE didn't like Purgatory. HE didn't like faith plus works. HE claimed that these books were not scripture, in contradiction with the historical truth that faced him whenever he opened a Bible he didn't write himself.

As others have pointed out, the Orthodox Churches, which split from the Catholic Church five hundreds years before Luther did, also include the Deuterocanonical books (as well as some others) in their Bibles, and always have. So to claim that the Catholic Church added them just to shut Luther up is a completely incorrect and misleading statement.

And to say that the Church kept these books in simply to rake in money from mass attendance is grossly insulting to Catholics. Kindly refrain from making such outrageous statements about us.

 

[TSIBHOD]

1. You are closed minded and have accepted the party line and will not change.

2. You fell safe "running with the crowd" and it appears you are not ready yet to break from your comfort zone.

3. If I presented my "primary and legitimate" sources then you will most likely just use your already "prepared excuse" by saying my sources are not "primary or legitimate" in your eyes while yours "are".

4. If you are convinced they do not exist this shows you have not studied the other side objectively. Just to show the info is out there for anybody to get I spent less than 10 minutes and searched google using some key words and found enough to show a hoax. My sources are in books at my house. I did the search to prove that the info is there if someone was truly interested.

Bottom line - no, I will not bother here and you can say what you want - won't keep me awake enough to yawn. Was ready to discuss but your "if they exist" ended this with me.

If you are really interested you can search it out - myself and others did - no spoon feeding here - you will not accept it anyway.

Again, if I thought you were realy interested then we could chat but you haven't convinced me - if I'm wrong then it won't be the frist time and most certainly won't be the last. But I think I read you accurately on this one here. No, stay where you are at. Remember what Barnum and Bailey said?

Have a nice day.

You say that Philip isn't willing to examine other sources that might prove him wrong. This is an idea known as the "confirmation bias": a person will accept evidence in favor of them, but not evidence against them. My question is: how do you know this isn't true of yourself?

 

[CaDan]

1. Because the texts the AV came from came from Asia Minor (right line) not the ones that came from Egpyt from the 3rd century (wrong line). God blessed the Asia Minor line while the line from Egypt has been a flop.

2. The versions can and did come "directly from the Greek" - the right Greek line from Antioch and Asia Minor.

3. Not doubting this - but if there was "true" evangelism then it came from the right texts - not the ones that orginated from Egypt.

Again - God has his blessing on the texts from Asia Minor (1st century) not the Egyptian (3rd century). If you have a Bible from the right line then you are safe. If you have a bible from the wrong line (Egypt) then toss it.

Before 1611 God used many translations mightily as long as they came from the right line. Since 1611 I believe the standard is the English 1611 and if your version comes from that one or the texts it came from then you are safe.

I do not know how to make it any clearer.

God bless

God bless

Are you advocating use of Majority Text or Textus Receptus?

 

[TSIBHOD]

So, AVBunyan, what do you say about all the people who are sincere, God-fearing Christians who are ever seeking to grow closer to God--yet they use a "modern" version like the NASB or the NIV or whatever?

 

[AVBunyan]

So, AVBunyan, what do you say about all the people who are sincere, God-fearing Christians who are ever seeking to grow closer to God--yet they use a "modern" version like the NASB or the NIV or whatever?

I would say they are "sincere, God-fearing Christians who are ever seeking to grow closer to God". But, when they read the newer versions they are not getting all that God has available for them. The newer versions contain some of the words of God and there they get something. I just believe they would get more froom the AV. One likened this to a stunted growth by reading the modern versions. There can and is growth but stunted.

Again, having a KJV doesn't guarantee growth either just by "bodly defending" it. One must mix the AV with a humble, believing and regenerated heart. I know folks who read the KJV only and are sadlly lacking in areas. I certainly fall into this area quite often. My having a KJV doesn't gurantee me anthing but the fact that I have it - I must read it, believe it and act upon it by faith - and again, I fail much in this area.

God bless

 

[TSIBHOD]

Well, here's the conclusion I'm stuck with. People can be close to God or far from God while they use the KJV. People can also be close to God or far from God while they use another version. I have yet to see some study where masses of people are studied, and the ones that use the KJV are found to be more holy on average. So personal holiness that individuals have seems to be unrelated to which Bible version they use. I think holiness (closeness to God, whatever you want to call it) has little to do with which version you use, but a whole lot to do with how much you pray and seek the Lord.

Where am I wrong here?

 

[Oblio]

[T.I.C.]
Where do we see the KJV mentioned in the Bible ??
[/tongue]