Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Shaker

Biblical knowledge

No, not that sort of knowledge.

Richard Dawkins has spoken in glowing terms of the Authorized/King James Bible as one of the cornerstones of the English language, explicitly stating that nobody can really understand the phrases and idioms of English and get to grips with English literature without some familiarity with it. There are 122 such phrases here. This site claims upwards of two hundred.

Philip Pullman has described himself as a "King James Bible" atheist - a firm unbeliever, but one who loves the Jacobean language of the book.

Even amongst convinced atheists the Authorized/KJV (specifically: it really doesn't apply to other translations in any way) is held up as an exemplar of English literature and culture. So:

(1) Will this knowledge eventually be lost, gradually dwindling and fading until at some point in the not very distant future it will become all but extinct, the literary equivalent of words now known predominantly to literary specialists; and

(2) Would that be a good thing (an improvement, a plus), a bad thing (a loss), or somewhere in between?
Jim

Re: Biblical knowledge

Shaker wrote:
No, not that sort of knowledge.

Richard Dawkins has spoken in glowing terms of the Authorized/King James Bible as one of the cornerstones of the English language, explicitly stating that nobody can really understand the phrases and idioms of English and get to grips with English literature without some familiarity with it. There are 122 such phrases here. This site claims upwards of two hundred.

Philip Pullman has described himself as a "King James Bible" atheist - a firm unbeliever, but one who loves the Jacobean language of the book.

Even amongst convinced atheists the Authorized/KJV (specifically: it really doesn't apply to other translations in any way) is held up as an exemplar of English literature and culture. So:

(1) Will this knowledge eventually be lost, gradually dwindling and fading until at some point in the not very distant future it will become all but extinct, the literary equivalent of words now known predominantly to literary specialists;
-
No...
Because, strangely enough, the KJV is viewed as the only, perfect translation of Scripture by certain fundamentalist Christians...despite it haveing gon through at least twenty four revisions, each one 'correcting' errors in the so-called 'perfect' 1611 edition. As early as 1623, a team of Christian scholars were complaining about its' innaccuracy. The Church of Scotland rejected it on the grounds of it being in archaic language" (They were forced to use it by Charles 1, but stopped following the first 'Bishops War" and returned to the Geneva Bible. Only under Charles II and James VI was the Kirk forced to use it - by law.
-

(2) Would that be a good thing (an improvement, a plus), a bad thing (a loss), or somewhere in between?

-
If you like Jacobean language, it's a good thing.
If you want an accurate translation, forget it!
Shaker

That seems to be thing, though, Jim.

A great many people - categorical atheists among them - love the language because of the language and not the actual content. The way it's said, not what's said, basically. Balls put beautifully thereby becomes "beautiful balls", as Philip Larkin remarked after somebody challenged him to read the Bible.

I declare an interest: I'm sympathetic to this point of view because as well as the KJV, as a teenager and in my early twenties I grew myself up on Francis Bacon, Jeremy Taylor, Robert Burton and Sir Thomas Browne amongst others. So it's my niche.

Your reply gives rise to the question: OK, so you say an accurate translation - but accurate according to what/which/whose definition? Accurate implies a standard of correctness and truth against which something else (like the KJV) is being judged.
Jim

[quote="Shaker:116494"]That seems to be thing, though, Jim.

A great many people - categorical atheists among them - love the language because of the language and not the actual content. The way it's said, not what's said, basically. Balls put beautifully thereby becomes "beautiful balls", as Philip Larkin remarked after somebody challenged him to read the Bible.  
-
Not a bad thing. Even for atheists, there's a whole treasury of poetry there, and the Jacobean language goes down a treat with Psalms and Proverbs...but stumbles badly over the Pauline Epistles.
-


I declare an interest: I'm sympathetic to this point of view because as well as the KJV, as a teenager and in my early twenties I grew myself up on Francis Bacon, Jeremy Taylor, Robert Burton and Sir Thomas Browne amongst others. So it's my niche.

-
I'm not a real Shakespeare fan...mainly because of Macbeth.
Some of his poetry - assuming it WAS his poetry - is readablee, though.
I love Bacon, Brown, Sheridon, though.
-
Your reply gives rise to the question: OK, so you say an accurate translation - but accurate according to what/which/whose definition? Accurate implies a standard of correctness and truth against which something else (like the KJV) is being judged.

-
Because the material the KJV translators had to work with was very limited. Only earlier English translations, such as the Geneva, plus the Latin Vulgate, and a very few ninth century MSS from Oxford University.
The earlier Greek MSS in Rome and Constantinople, even in France, were denied them, and the Oxford MSS was somewhat incomplete and flawed.
Modern versions rely on the aforementioned MSS, plus recent (19th and 20th century) finds at St Katherines Monastary, Sinai, (Codex Sinaticus and Codex Bezae) plus the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain virtually all the Old Testament canon.
Shaker

I posed this question because it's taken as axiomatic amongst a great many people, many convinced atheists among them, that the dwindling of Biblical knowledge is A Very Bad Thing and its disappearance would be an absolute catastrophe.

And so it may well be: I'm not necessarily saying that that's right or wrong. Clearly without an awareness of the Bible so many idioms, phrases, proverbs and sayings don't make sense and untold references and allusions in English literature for the past four hundred years are going to go over your head. We'd all be the worse for that.

But how much worse?

There's a precedent here, it seems to me. Until well into the twentieth century it was the norm for upper middle class and upper class young men (and it was pretty well exclusively men) to receive a classical education: they would learn the rudiments of Latin and often Greek as well. Familiarity with Roman and Greek myth was a given. Being able to decline your Latin verbs - amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant: yes, I taught myself - was about as fundamental in a young man's education as it got.

That has all but died out by now, though. Anybody who wants to learn about Roman and Greek myth has to capitalise on their own interest in the subject and teach themselves, as I did there as well. General awareness of the stories of Baucis and Philemon, Jupiter and Ganymede, Leda and the swan, Ariadne, Perseus has died out in the population. Few people stopped in the street would be able to say what the Augean Stables were. Next to nobody could tell you who Clytemnestra and Penelope were. A vanishingly small segment of the population could explain what the phrase 'to be/act as a Cassandra' refers to.

It's easy enough for me to say that I think we're the poorer for not knowing these things because it's always easy to regard something that you yourself like and enjoy and find interesting as indispensable. I would say that anybody who doesn't listen to Sibelius or Gerald Finzi is missing out on something precious and beautiful - but then I would, wouldn't I? Not everybody has the same tastes and interests. Knowledge of Greek and Roman language/myth and legend/art/culture are, let's face it, very much a luxury these days: a pastime for those fortunate enough to have not just the inclination but the time to pursue that inclination. If you want to read Robert Graves's Greek Myths or Bullfinch's Mythology to pieces, as I did as a teenager, you have to do so under your own steam, and as I say, this is a luxury item not suited to anybody whose primary concern is getting and spending, simply trying to earn enough to keep a shirt on their back and food on the table.

So it may well be unfortunate and sad and to be lamented if Biblical literacy goes the same way as Graeco-Roman myth and legend from my perspective; but we've lost as much of a treasurehouse of imagination before and we've survived.
Ketty

But then, and I don't knock it, you're only reading it for the beauty (or otherwise) of the particular tongue it's written.  That's an esoteric exercise, a poetic exercise, an academic exercise, an artistic exercise - in themselves no bad things.  I guess if it's being read for whatever the reason, one hopes that the Gospel message plants a seed.
Derek

[quote="Jim:116497"]
Shaker wrote:
That seems to be thing, though, Jim.

A great many people - categorical atheists among them - love the language because of the language and not the actual content. The way it's said, not what's said, basically. Balls put beautifully thereby becomes "beautiful balls", as Philip Larkin remarked after somebody challenged him to read the Bible.  
-
Not a bad thing. Even for atheists, there's a whole treasury of poetry there, and the Jacobean language goes down a treat with Psalms and Proverbs...but stumbles badly over the Pauline Epistles.
-


I declare an interest: I'm sympathetic to this point of view because as well as the KJV, as a teenager and in my early twenties I grew myself up on Francis Bacon, Jeremy Taylor, Robert Burton and Sir Thomas Browne amongst others. So it's my niche.

-
I'm not a real Shakespeare fan...mainly because of Macbeth.
Some of his poetry - assuming it WAS his poetry - is readablee, though.
I love Bacon, Brown, Sheridon, though.
-
Your reply gives rise to the question: OK, so you say an accurate translation - but accurate according to what/which/whose definition? Accurate implies a standard of correctness and truth against which something else (like the KJV) is being judged.

-
Because the material the KJV translators had to work with was very limited. Only earlier English translations, such as the Geneva, plus the Latin Vulgate, and a very few ninth century MSS from Oxford University.
The earlier Greek MSS in Rome and Constantinople, even in France, were denied them, and the Oxford MSS was somewhat incomplete and flawed.
Modern versions rely on the aforementioned MSS, plus recent (19th and 20th century) finds at St Katherines Monastary, Sinai, (Codex Sinaticus and Codex Bezae) plus the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contain virtually all the Old Testament canon.


Then what a blessing it was that God was helping and inspiring them, and his knowledge supersedes all of the man inspired sources you mention. The KJV is translated according to what God wanted it to read. Anything else questions the power of God and puts mans knowledge above Gods knowledge. KJV is all we need to draw near to the word of God. His actual translation and not mans arrogance in thinking he can do better then God.

The problem lies in the Holy Ghost. If you have never had the HG testify to your soul then you tend to rely upon the arm of flesh as opposed to the arm of God. Man is of greater authority then God is. Hence the ridiculous claim that they did not have the same learning when God is omniscient. Sound a little contradictory doesn't it?
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
The KJV is translated according to what God wanted it to read. Anything else questions the power of God and puts mans knowledge above Gods knowledge. KJV is all we need to draw near to the word of God. His actual translation and not mans arrogance in thinking he can do better then God.


But why is the KJV, formed as it was by scholars and committees and other fallible humans, any less an act of human arrogance than any other translation?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
But why is the KJV, formed as it was by scholars and committees and other fallible humans, any less an act of human arrogance than any other translation?


I think Ralphie is of the mindset of the (possibly apocryphal, possibly not) American politician who is said to have remarked that if English was good enough for Jesus it was good enough for him.
Jim

Shaker wrote:
I posed this question because it's taken as axiomatic amongst a great many people, many convinced atheists among them, that the dwindling of Biblical knowledge is A Very Bad Thing and its disappearance would be an absolute catastrophe.
-
From the dim and distant past of my memory, I remember, among other things, being 'made' to learn KJV verses by rote.
I still know them.
Problem is, though, we were never asked to interpret them, put them in context, or relte them to everyday life. It's all very well having an exhaustive store of quotes - a parrot can do that - but using thos quotes as part of faith?
Actually, it was the 'thee's' and 'Thou's' that helped me on the road to atheism!
-

And so it may well be: I'm not necessarily saying that that's right or wrong. Clearly without an awareness of the Bible so many idioms, phrases, proverbs and sayings don't make sense and untold references and allusions in English literature for the past four hundred years are going to go over your head. We'd all be the worse for that.  
-
Er....There's Scots literature as well!
Would we REALLY be the worse without Shakespeare?
I mean - apart from the travesty or Macbeth, I've read most of his plays...and enjoyed a few. But I like literature.
Until the advent of JK Rowling,how many kids wewre force fed the bard, and as soon as they ditched English, they also ditched reading anything more intellectual than the Sun?
-

But how much worse?

There's a precedent here, it seems to me. Until well into the twentieth century it was the norm for upper middle class and upper class young men (and it was pretty well exclusively men) to receive a classical education: they would learn the rudiments of Latin and often Greek as well. Familiarity with Roman and Greek myth was a given. Being able to decline your Latin verbs - amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant: yes, I taught myself - was about as fundamental in a young man's education as it got.
-
Yep.
I took a crash course in Latin for my higher year (A level). I was considered wierd in the process (after all, I'm working class, born and bred.)  When I took Greek at Uni (1979), it was confined basiclly to Divinity and ancient history geeks...I fell headfirst into both camps.
-

That has all but died out by now, though. Anybody who wants to learn about Roman and Greek myth has to capitalise on their own interest in the subject and teach themselves, as I did there as well. General awareness of the stories of Baucis and Philemon, Jupiter and Ganymede, Leda and the swan, Ariadne, Perseus has died out in the population. Few people stopped in the street would be able to say what the Augean Stables were. Next to nobody could tell you who Clytemnestra and Penelope were. A vanishingly small segment of the population could explain what the phrase 'to be/act as a Cassandra' refers to.
-
Actually, I'm glad to say I disagree, here.
My secondary school Latin department closed in 1982...and reopened in 2006! Uptake in Latin as a gateway language to the "Romance" languages in Ayrshire is very encouraging. In 2012, there were over three hundred sixth form Latin scholars.
Greek is virtually non-existant in state schools, though.
-

It's easy enough for me to say that I think we're the poorer for not knowing these things because it's always easy to regard something that you yourself like and enjoy and find interesting as indispensable. I would say that anybody who doesn't listen to Sibelius or Gerald Finzi is missing out on something precious and beautiful - but then I would, wouldn't I? Not everybody has the same tastes and interests. Knowledge of Greek and Roman language/myth and legend/art/culture are, let's face it, very much a luxury these days: a pastime for those fortunate enough to have not just the inclination but the time to pursue that inclination. If you want to read Robert Graves's Greek Myths or Bullfinch's Mythology to pieces, as I did as a teenager, you have to do so under your own steam, and as I say, this is a luxury item not suited to anybody whose primary concern is getting and spending, simply trying to earn enough to keep a shirt on their back and food on the table.  
-
I think coming on the classics - whether translations from the original texts, or music - by accident (don't knock Classic FM; it's made a few converts) is better than dragging semi-reluctant pupils down roads they don't want to go...this leads them into a mindset where they shun anything they perceive as 'highbrow'.
-

So it may well be unfortunate and sad and to be lamented if Biblical literacy goes the same way as Graeco-Roman myth and legend from my perspective; but we've lost as much of a treasurehouse of imagination before and we've survived.
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The KJV is translated according to what God wanted it to read. Anything else questions the power of God and puts mans knowledge above Gods knowledge. KJV is all we need to draw near to the word of God. His actual translation and not mans arrogance in thinking he can do better then God.


But why is the KJV, formed as it was by scholars and committees and other fallible humans, any less an act of human arrogance than any other translation?


Because the KJV was God inspired, as I said.
Jim

Er....
If the 1611 KJV was so perfect, so infallable, why did it go through nearly 24 revisions cotrrecting innumerable translation errors...not to mention the legendary printing mistakes?
Why did a group of scholars (Latin and Greek experts) condemn it as error strewn as early as 1621?
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The KJV is translated according to what God wanted it to read. Anything else questions the power of God and puts mans knowledge above Gods knowledge. KJV is all we need to draw near to the word of God. His actual translation and not mans arrogance in thinking he can do better then God.


But why is the KJV, formed as it was by scholars and committees and other fallible humans, any less an act of human arrogance than any other translation?


Because the KJV was God inspired, as I said.


I realise that that is what you believe. What I am asking is why do you believe that. To someone who doesn't share this belief with you, the process of producing the KJV seems as human and as fallible as the process of producing the RSV, the NEB, the Bible de Port-Royal, etc etc.

What was inherently different about the process of producing the KJV which leads you to believe that it is more inspired and less fallible than other efforts?

What do you think should be read by Christians who speak French, or Arabic, or Japanese, for example? For them, too, is the KJV more reliable than any other translation?
Derek

Jim wrote:
Er....
If the 1611 KJV was so perfect, so infallable, why did it go through nearly 24 revisions cotrrecting innumerable translation errors...not to mention the legendary printing mistakes?
Why did a group of scholars (Latin and Greek experts) condemn it as error strewn as early as 1621?


Why would you think that it was perfect and infallable. I didn't say that. What would make you think that because God inspired it that man got it right. How unusual. How do you know that by getting it wrong was actually getting it right. Where is the translated comparison.

Imagine, if you can, that God had produced a book of commandments that would bring man closer to God. What do you think Satan would do about that? Perhaps influence others to put a question mark over the translation. You have limited belief in the power of God and the distructive influence of Satan

Why do you question Gods infinite knowledge with mans limited knowledge. Do you not see God as omniscient and man as restricted.
Jim

Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Er....
If the 1611 KJV was so perfect, so infallable, why did it go through nearly 24 revisions cotrrecting innumerable translation errors...not to mention the legendary printing mistakes?
Why did a group of scholars (Latin and Greek experts) condemn it as error strewn as early as 1621?


Why would you think that it was perfect and infallable. I didn't say that. What would make you think that because God inspired it that man got it right. How unusual.

Imagine, if you can, that God had produced a book of commandments that would bring man closer to God. What do you think Satan would do about that? Perhaps influence others to put a question mark over the translation. You have limited belief in the power of God and the distructive influence of Satan

Why do you question Gods infinite knowledge with mans limited knowledge. Do you not see God as omniscient and man as restricted.


-
Oh, dear.
I question neither;
I give thanks for the work of Biblica, the discovery of older, more accurate MSS that show the errors in our translations from the Vulgate onwards.
We can be sure, given the scholarship, abilities, MSS material, etc, that modern versions, while not being in such poetic language, are more accurate and less biased than the KJV.
You DO know that James VI personally intervened in the translation process, to ensure that words were skewed to enhance the image of royalty, to suit his 'divine right of kings' theories, don't you?
And you're happy that this happened?
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The KJV is translated according to what God wanted it to read. Anything else questions the power of God and puts mans knowledge above Gods knowledge. KJV is all we need to draw near to the word of God. His actual translation and not mans arrogance in thinking he can do better then God.


But why is the KJV, formed as it was by scholars and committees and other fallible humans, any less an act of human arrogance than any other translation?


Because the KJV was God inspired, as I said.


I realise that that is what you believe. What I am asking is why do you believe that. To someone who doesn't share this belief with you, the process of producing the KJV seems as human and as fallible as the process of producing the RSV, the NEB, the Bible de Port-Royal, etc etc.

What was inherently different about the process of producing the KJV which leads you to believe that it is more inspired and less fallible than other efforts?

What do you think should be read by Christians who speak French, or Arabic, or Japanese, for example? For them, too, is the KJV more reliable than any other translation?


Let me first say that we are all untitled to read the scriptures of our choice. What I resent is when people trash one version in favour of the one they read
It is yet another example of elitism. My choice is right which makes yours wrong. I choose the KJV because it makes me feel good when I read its pages.

It is my belief that each language has its own authorised translation specific to them and their culture. For the UK it is the KJV. The newer versions change the meaning of many of the verses. When ever I am studying a particular subject I check many of the other translations and I am shocked to see that many are completely different. If we all stick with one authorised edition then there will be no squabbling over which is the correct one, so, I take the authorised KJV to be my reference point. God does not want us to squabble.

The King James Version (KJV), commonly known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611. First printed by the King's Printer Robert Barker, this was the third translation into English to be approved by the English Church authorities. The first was the Great Bible commissioned in the reign of King Henry VIII (1535), and the second was the Bishops' Bible of 1568. In January 1604, King James VI and I convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Woman was Testament was translated from Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin. In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible – for Epistle and Gospel readings – and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament. By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version had become effectively unchallenged as the English translation used in Anglican and Protestant churches. Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars. With the development of stereotype printing at the beginning of the 19th century, this version of the Bible became the most widely printed book in history, almost all such printings presenting the standard text of 1769 extensively re-edited by Benjamin Blayney at Oxford; and nearly always omitting the books of the Apocrypha. Today the unqualifed title 'King James Version' commonly identifies this Oxford standard text, especially in the United States.
Jim

Have a look at
https://bible.org/article/why-i-d...-best-translation-available-today
It's a bit simplistic, I know, but points out the failings of the KJV in terms of translation, reliability and readability.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Er....
If the 1611 KJV was so perfect, so infallable, why did it go through nearly 24 revisions cotrrecting innumerable translation errors...not to mention the legendary printing mistakes?
Why did a group of scholars (Latin and Greek experts) condemn it as error strewn as early as 1621?


Why would you think that it was perfect and infallable. I didn't say that. What would make you think that because God inspired it that man got it right. How unusual.

Imagine, if you can, that God had produced a book of commandments that would bring man closer to God. What do you think Satan would do about that? Perhaps influence others to put a question mark over the translation. You have limited belief in the power of God and the distructive influence of Satan

Why do you question Gods infinite knowledge with mans limited knowledge. Do you not see God as omniscient and man as restricted.


-
Oh, dear.
I question neither;
I give thanks for the work of Biblica, the discovery of older, more accurate MSS that show the errors in our translations from the Vulgate onwards.
We can be sure, given the scholarship, abilities, MSS material, etc, that modern versions, while not being in such poetic language, are more accurate and less biased than the KJV.
You DO know that James VI personally intervened in the translation process, to ensure that words were skewed to enhance the image of royalty, to suit his 'divine right of kings' theories, don't you?
And you're happy that this happened?


Yes, I am very happy with this as God knew all about it and used it in his compilation of his devine  words. You seem to lack faith in the ability of God and promote divinity in man. God is omniscient. What he does not need is self proclaimed Christians criticising his translation of Holy writ and causing confusion amongst his children.
Jim

No.
I wish to use a translation of Scripture which is accurate, reliable, easy to read, easy to understand and, above all, true to the languages in which it was first written.
In other words, a more 'literary' approach to the poetry of the OT while a more 'common' approach to the new.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Have a look at
https://bible.org/article/why-i-d...-best-translation-available-today
It's a bit simplistic, I know, but points out the failings of the KJV in terms of translation, reliability and readability.


This is always the same old story on here. You search the internet to find someone who disagrees with me and I do the same. You look for translations that corroborate the trinity and I quote from scriptures that tell the truth. I say that KJV is inspired by God and you claim that translations that change the meaning of Christianity are right. At the end of the day it is by the testimony of the Holy Ghost that we may know the truth. The Holy Ghost has testified to my soul that the KJV is Gods authorised preservation of His word.

About David Daniels
Search for Additional Articles

© 2001 by David W. Daniels

Question: What is wrong with the New King James Version (NKJV)? All it does is modernize the words of the King James Bible, right? Why should I read the King James and not the helpful New King James?

Answer: The New King James is not a King James Bible. It changed thousands of words, ruined valuable verses, and when not agreeing with the King James Bible, it has instead copied the perverted NIV, NASV or RSV. And this you must know: those who translated the NKJV did not believe God perfectly preserved His words!

I have gotten more letters on this question than almost any other. This is very important to those who want God's truth in the English language. I myself used the NKJV for a decade before I learned the truth about the preserved words of God. Here is some of what convinced me to switch to the King James Bible from the "New King James."

Changed Words Means Changed Meanings

We know that Bible versions disagree on how to translate certain words. Here is an example: Is Jesus God's "Son" or God's "servant"? In Acts 3:26, the NKJV calls Jesus God's "Servant." The KJV correctly calls Him God’s "Son." These are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. Which one is He? If He is God's servant, so are you and I. If He is God's Son, then we all need to listen to what He said, because He is God! Changed words like this make a great deal of difference in how we understand a passage.
Derek

Why the KJV is the Best Bible Translation

The Bible translation debate rages on — which is best? Many argue the “modern” translations are easier to read and we should stop using the KJV and use one of the many newer translations; unfortunately ignoring the textual basis and focusing only on easy-to-read is a grave error.

By that logic, use the NWT (New World Translation).

Obviously, translational differences are important. If they’re not, just make up your own Bible and don’t worry about it — you won’t need Jesus, sin, hell, sanctification, justification or forgiveness either.

We’ll refrain from discussion about the (should be) obvious error of splitting churches over Bible translation, and we’ll leave it at that (which we discussed extensively in our previous article on Bible Translation). However, it also should be obvious insuring what you read is actually what the Bible writers intended is critical.

When considering Bible translation, many issues arise but for simplicity we’ll stick to two.

What you’re translating from. Two lines of Greek texts exist with differences.
How you translate what you’ve got.
Most people focus on #2 — the easy-to-read argument, but completely ignore #1 (Much discussion of #2 is available in our previously mentioned article — we’ll focus on textual differences here).

While the textual debate continues, this discussion didn’t even exist until the late 1800’s when Westcott and Hort edited the received text and came up with their version — changing the Greek in thousands of places. Why they did this, and their background is critical to understanding the Bible translation debate.

The church used accepted texts for centuries, while the “critical” text for the last 100 or so. Westcott/Hort relied heavily on Alexandrian manuscripts — if Alexandria sounds familiar, it should — it was the center of Gnostic heresy. Consider the words of Westcott/Hort themselves:

But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. (Life of Hort Vol I page 416)

… I am inclined to think that no such state as “Eden” (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants … (Life of Hort Vol I page 78)

No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history-I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did … (Life of Westcott Vol II page 19)

Christians are themselves in a true sense “Christs” (The Epistles of St. John page 73)

Does that sound like orthodox Christian theology? The problem stems from allowing their gnostic ideas to influence their Bible work. Everyone has bias, the idea is to minimize it as much as possible. Even if their views don’t matter or didn’t influence their work (doubtful), some of the changes they made to the text don’t make sense, and some introduce contradictions in the Bible.

Westcott/Hort delete Matthew 18:11, Acts 8:37 entirely (check your translation and see if they’re there — many people are surprised to find verses missing from their Bible), and edit other verses in ways that not only don’t make sense, but contradict the Bible itself.

(Matthew 25:13 NIV) Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

(Matthew 25:13 ESV) Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.

(Matthew 25:13 NKJV) Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.

Westcott/Hort delete “in which the Son of Man is coming”. In their version, the verse just says you don’t know the day or the hour — so buy a watch or sundial.

(Ephesians 3:9 NIV) and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

(Ephesians 3:9 ESV) and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,

(Ephesians 3:9 NKJV) and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;

Westcott/Hort remove the creation from Jesus, which contradicts Paul in Colossians 1. In verse 17, Paul even tells you Jesus holds all the atoms together — He’s the “strong nuclear force” as science calls it. Since the Bible is inerrant, it must be Westcott/Hort making the mistakes, not God.

There are of course many other changes, but these two examples illustrate the editorial revisions Westcott/Hort made to the text. Those arguing the insignificance of these edits argue from the “prego sauce” view — the Bible is a jar of sauce and “it’s all in there” somewhere so these individual edits don’t matter much. But should we allow editing of the Word of God? Me thinks not.

The Textus Receptus (basis for KJV/NKJV) was the received text until about 1900 when the critical text became popular, while the modern translations generally don’t say Westcott/Hort, instead referring to Nestle/Aland or UBS Greek text (which is basically Westcott/Hort). Each modern translation then decides how much to follow Westcott/Hort (NASB less, NIV and it appears ESV more, although experience with ESV is limited).

No matter what translation you use, understand they all have problems. The key is, do you know the foundation of the translation you use, and do you understand the methodology and beliefs/bias of the people who translated it? Picking a translation just because you like the way it reads is foolish, and quite dangerous. You need to do some homework on this subject and check it out for yourself — just because a new easy-to-read translation comes out (and is “scholarly”) doesn’t mean it’s good. How can you know you’re being deceived if you don’t do your own homework?

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me; seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. (Hosea 4:6 KJV)

Once you start making edits to the Word of God for language, gender or other reasons, where does it stop? How much editing can you do to God’s Word before it becomes unacceptable? After how many edits does the Bible cease to be a Bible? Who gets to choose what edits should be made? And why? Those are questions each Christian needs to answer for themselves; unfortunately it requires work on your part.

The modern critical text began by Westcott/Hort is a corrupt line and should be rejected by Christians. However, we are not espousing the “KJV-Only” position — any soundly translated Bible from the Textus Receptus is acceptable. As such, the NKJV is a choice for people who want a Bible in an easier to read modern vocabulary. It also must be noted recent translations have differing views on how closely they follow Westcott/Hort — some follow it more closely than others.

Don’t believe anything anyone tells you — be a Berean (Acts 17:11) and do your own research and don’t believe so-called scholars who come up with absurd scholarly-sounding theories like the documentary hypothesis and Deutero-Isaiah theory; theories having volumes of pseudo-scholarship behind them and are quickly disproved by reading the Bible (without even reading their reams of “scholarship”) — just because someone has a PhD behind their name does not mean they’re right (though their hand-waving arguments sway many). They can teach in seminary, have PhD’s and still be quite wrong (or not even Christian).

Do your own homework. Please. Don’t use a translation just because you like the way it reads. Be sure your Bible really is the Word of God
Jim

Why should people undertake a course in Jacobean literacy before reading an errant translation?
Isn't a translation in modern, easily accsable English a better prospect - and a translation undertaken with better MSS and scholarship at the translators' disposal?
Derek

Jim wrote:
Why should people undertake a course in Jacobean literacy before reading an errant translation?
Isn't a translation in modern, easily accsable English a better prospect - and a translation undertaken with better MSS and scholarship at the translators' disposal?


Not when it changes the meaning of the message. Why do you critique God for not compiling it in a manner that you better understand.
Jim

[quote="Ralph2:116543"]
Jim wrote:
Why should people undertake a course in Jacobean literacy before reading an errant translation?
Isn't a translation in modern, easily accsable English a better prospect - and a translation undertaken with better MSS and scholarship at the translators' disposal?


Not when it changes the meaning of the message. Why do you critique God for not compiling it in a manner that you better understand.
-
Changing the message?
No, I critique Janes VI for interfering with the translation.
In doing this, he was little better than the mistranslators of the NWT.
Derek

[quote="Jim:116547"]
Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why should people undertake a course in Jacobean literacy before reading an errant translation?
Isn't a translation in modern, easily accsable English a better prospect - and a translation undertaken with better MSS and scholarship at the translators' disposal?


Not when it changes the meaning of the message. Why do you critique God for not compiling it in a manner that you better understand.
-
Changing the message?
No, I critique Janes VI for interfering with the translation.
In doing this, he was little better than the mistranslators of the NWT.


You don't think that God was fully aware that this would happen?  Alpha and Omega?
Jim

[quote="Ralph2:116551"][quote="Jim:116547"]
Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why should people undertake a course in Jacobean literacy before reading an errant translation?
Isn't a translation in modern, easily accsable English a better prospect - and a translation undertaken with better MSS and scholarship at the translators' disposal?


Not when it changes the meaning of the message. Why do you critique God for not compiling it in a manner that you better understand.
-
Changing the message?
No, I critique Janes VI for interfering with the translation.
In doing this, he was little better than the mistranslators of the NWT.


You don't think that God was fully aware that this would happen?  Alpha and Omega?
-
Of course God was, and is aware...which is why HE inspired Biblica, the organisation which authorises and institutes modern Bible translations in close on two hundred languages.
Derek

[quote="Jim:116552"][quote="Ralph2:116551"]
Jim wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why should people undertake a course in Jacobean literacy before reading an errant translation?
Isn't a translation in modern, easily accsable English a better prospect - and a translation undertaken with better MSS and scholarship at the translators' disposal?


Not when it changes the meaning of the message. Why do you critique God for not compiling it in a manner that you better understand.
-
Changing the message?
No, I critique Janes VI for interfering with the translation.
In doing this, he was little better than the mistranslators of the NWT.


You don't think that God was fully aware that this would happen?  Alpha and Omega?
-
Of course God was, and is aware...which is why HE inspired Biblica, the organisation which authorises and institutes modern Bible translations in close on two hundred languages.


Another bible. We have no need for another bible. Are we saying that God gave us a bible that lies and deceives us. Are we saying that God got the first one wrong so we need another? No, there is no need for another bible as the KJV contains the inspired word of God.
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:
Another bible. We have no need for another bible. Are we saying that God gave us a bible that lies and deceives us. Are we saying that God got the first one wrong so we need another? No, there is no need for another bible as the KJV contains the inspired word of God.


Time to use that Book of Mormon as a fire-lighter.

Of course there is need for other translations: I don't think the Chinese would get on too well with the KJV.  Why are the cults so afraid of Bibles that give a more accurate translation of the original language?  Why do they needeth to holdeth onto it rejecting all other when nobody talks like that any more?  Why are they so afraid of God speaking to people accurately in their own language?

Ralph2 wrote:
Delbert please cite your sources for this post.  They are not your own words.  Did you check copyright?  Thank you.
Jim

[quote="Ralph2:116553"][quote="Jim:116552"][quote="Ralph2:116551"][quote="Jim:116547"][quote="Ralph2:116543"][quote="Jim:116541"]Why should people undertake a course in Jacobean literacy before reading an errant translation?
Isn't a translation in modern, easily accsable English a better prospect - and a translation undertaken with better MSS and scholarship at the translators'   disposal.

The first one?
You mean God got the Vulgate wrong?
The Wycliffe?
The Geneva?
The Tyndale?
Seems to have got a few wrong befoore he made the KJV - which He felt the need to reviise a few times to correct His errors!
Derek

[



No, god didn't get them wrong.  Man did. AlthoughTyndale got it badly wrong as he was executed before completion of the old testament.

Troll (Internet)

In Internet slang , a troll. (ˈ | t | r | oʊ | l, ˈ | t | r | ɒ | l is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=troll&fulltext=search
The Boyg

Jim wrote:
The first one?
You mean God got the Vulgate wrong?
The Wycliffe?
The Geneva?
The Tyndale?
Seems to have got a few wrong befoore he made the KJV - which He felt the need to reviise a few times to correct His errors!


Ralph - why did God take a special interest in the KJV translation and not the others?
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
No, god didn't get them wrong.  Man did.


So, if God allowed these other translations to be created with errors, how can you be certain that God took a special interest in the KJV translation to ensure that the committee of translators produced a version that was exactly as God intended?
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Jim wrote:
The first one?
You mean God got the Vulgate wrong?
The Wycliffe?
The Geneva?
The Tyndale?
Seems to have got a few wrong befoore he made the KJV - which He felt the need to reviise a few times to correct His errors!


Ralph - why did God take a special interest in the KJV translation and not the others?


I have no idea.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why should people undertake a course in Jacobean literacy before reading an errant translation?
Isn't a translation in modern, easily accsable English a better prospect -  


Not when it changes the meaning of the message. .


What if the change is a more accurate rendition of the Greek than the KJV is?
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph - why did God take a special interest in the KJV translation and not the others?


I have no idea.


OK. Why do you believe that God took a special interest in the KJV translation to ensure that the committee of translators produced a version that was exactly as God intended?
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
No, god didn't get them wrong.  Man did.


So, if God allowed these other translations to be created with errors, how can you be certain that God took a special interest in the KJV translation to ensure that the committee of translators produced a version that was exactly as God intended?


Personally, I do not think God had any say in their creation, to neither allow or prevent them. It was mans decision. That would mean that he was not responsible in any way for the errors. I, personally, can be certain that God selected the KJV to tweak as I have read it and I feel the power of the Holy Ghost in its words and know that they are inspired by God. I have tried the rest but with no success. Secondly, I read the story of the translation and believe it. I also agree with the 15 Demands

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS.

1.  The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.

2.  The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.

3.  The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.

4.  When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.

5.  The division of chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.

6.  No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.

7.  Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and, having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.

9.  As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his

10.  Majesty is very careful on this point.
If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.

11.  When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.

12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before in the king's letter to the archbishop.

13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester, for Westminster, and the king's professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.

14.  These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."

15.  By a later rule, "three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation of the fourth rule."
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why should people undertake a course in Jacobean literacy before reading an errant translation?
Isn't a translation in modern, easily accsable English a better prospect -  


Not when it changes the meaning of the message. .


What if the change is a more accurate rendition of the Greek than the KJV is?


Not when it changes the meaning of the message.
trentvoyager

Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why should people undertake a course in Jacobean literacy before reading an errant translation?
Isn't a translation in modern, easily accsable English a better prospect -  


Not when it changes the meaning of the message. .


What if the change is a more accurate rendition of the Greek than the KJV is?


Not when it changes the meaning of the message.


But surely if it is a more accurate rendition of the older material then it is more likely to be closer to the original meaning?
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
No, god didn't get them wrong.  Man did.


So, if God allowed these other translations to be created with errors, how can you be certain that God took a special interest in the KJV translation to ensure that the committee of translators produced a version that was exactly as God intended?


Personally, I do not think God had any say in their creation, to neither allow or prevent them. It was mans decision. That would mean that he was not responsible in any way for the errors. I, personally, can be certain that God selected the KJV to tweak as I have read it and I feel the power of the Holy Ghost in its words and know that they are inspired by God. I have tried the rest but with no success.


So you believe that the KJV is the correct translation of the Bible into English because you believe that the KJV is the correct translation of the Bible into English.

Fair enough.
LeClerc

Hi Ralph

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
No, god didn't get them wrong.  Man did.


So, if God allowed these other translations to be created with errors, how can you be certain that God took a special interest in the KJV translation to ensure that the committee of translators produced a version that was exactly as God intended?


Personally, I do not think God had any say in their creation, to neither allow or prevent them. It was mans decision. That would mean that he was not responsible in any way for the errors. I, personally, can be certain that God selected the KJV to tweak as I have read it and I feel the power of the Holy Ghost in its words and know that they are inspired by God. I have tried the rest but with no success. Secondly, I read the story of the translation and believe it. I also agree with the 15 Demands

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS.

1.  The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.

2.  The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.

3.  The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.

4.  When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.

5.  The division of chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.

6.  No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.

7.  Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and, having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.

9.  As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his

10.  Majesty is very careful on this point.
If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.

11.  When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.

12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before in the king's letter to the archbishop.

13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester, for Westminster, and the king's professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.

14.  These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."

15.  By a later rule, "three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation of the fourth rule."


What was the King's motive for insisting that the Greek word Ekklesia should be translated Church, and not congregation.. (see rule 3), William Tyndale's translation (1526) used the term "congregation."

Regards

LeClerc
Jim

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
No, god didn't get them wrong.  Man did.


So, if God allowed these other translations to be created with errors, how can you be certain that God took a special interest in the KJV translation to ensure that the committee of translators produced a version that was exactly as God intended?


Personally, I do not think God had any say in their creation, to neither allow or prevent them. It was mans decision. That would mean that he was not responsible in any way for the errors. I, personally, can be certain that God selected the KJV to tweak as I have read it and I feel the power of the Holy Ghost in its words and know that they are inspired by God. I have tried the rest but with no success.


So you believe that the KJV is the correct translation of the Bible into English because you believe that the KJV is the correct translation of the Bible into English.

Fair enough.

-
Agreed - it didn't make sense to me either.
Perhaps I need a Glenlivet?
Jim

LeClerc wrote:
Hi Ralph

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
No, god didn't get them wrong.  Man did.


So, if God allowed these other translations to be created with errors, how can you be certain that God took a special interest in the KJV translation to ensure that the committee of translators produced a version that was exactly as God intended?


Personally, I do not think God had any say in their creation, to neither allow or prevent them. It was mans decision. That would mean that he was not responsible in any way for the errors. I, personally, can be certain that God selected the KJV to tweak as I have read it and I feel the power of the Holy Ghost in its words and know that they are inspired by God. I have tried the rest but with no success. Secondly, I read the story of the translation and believe it. I also agree with the 15 Demands

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS.

1.  The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.

2.  The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.

3.  The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.

4.  When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.

5.  The division of chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.

6.  No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.

7.  Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and, having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.

9.  As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his

10.  Majesty is very careful on this point.
If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.

11.  When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.

12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before in the king's letter to the archbishop.

13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester, for Westminster, and the king's professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.

14.  These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."

15.  By a later rule, "three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation of the fourth rule."


What was the King's motive for insisting that the Greek word Ekklesia should be translated Church, and not congregation.. (see rule 3), William Tyndale's translation (1526) used the term "congregation."

Regards

LeClerc

-
Something even more basic, LeClerc.
Why is the word "Easter in the "perfect" "Inspired" KJV?
Derek

trentvoyager wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why should people undertake a course in Jacobean literacy before reading an errant translation?
Isn't a translation in modern, easily accsable English a better prospect -  


Not when it changes the meaning of the message. .


What if the change is a more accurate rendition of the Greek than the KJV is?


Not when it changes the meaning of the message.


But surely if it is a more accurate rendition of the older material then it is more likely to be closer to the original meaning?


How do you get more accurate then perfection. How do you produce a better version of the truth then the truth. The truth is a constant. It does not change. That being the case, the KJV is sufficient for our needs and contains the inspired word of God, which is as relevant today as it was 400 odd years ago. Rewriting it only changes the constant, called the truth, and plays into the hands of Satan, who is the master of lies and deciet, by changing the will of the father for his children by leading them from paths of righteousness. Will we find the same thing happening in 50 years when men believe they know better then God, again, and makes the divide between the truth, and Satan's lies, even greater. God know best, all man has to do is follow his commandments, as found in the KJV of the bible, IMO.

Mark 2:21

No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.

Mark 4:15

And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
No, god didn't get them wrong.  Man did.


So, if God allowed these other translations to be created with errors, how can you be certain that God took a special interest in the KJV translation to ensure that the committee of translators produced a version that was exactly as God intended?


Personally, I do not think God had any say in their creation, to neither allow or prevent them. It was mans decision. That would mean that he was not responsible in any way for the errors. I, personally, can be certain that God selected the KJV to tweak as I have read it and I feel the power of the Holy Ghost in its words and know that they are inspired by God. I have tried the rest but with no success.


So you believe that the KJV is the correct translation of the Bible into English because you believe that the KJV is the correct translation of the Bible into English.

Fair enough.


Yes, pretty much. I am not about to force anyone else to follow my lead. By all the information that I have read on the various bibles that are in circulation the KJV stands out, to me, as the one that was inspired BT God. To change it is to take away from it and we are told that no man should add to, or take away from these things, which is exactly what a retranslation does. It changes the meaning of Scriptures.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
How do you get more accurate then perfection. How do you produce a better version of the truth then the truth. The truth is a constant. It does not change. That being the case, the KJV is sufficient for our needs and contains the inspired word of God, which is as relevant today as it was 400 odd years ago. Rewriting it only changes the constant, called the truth, and plays into the hands of Satan, who is the master of lies and deciet, by changing the will of the father for his children by leading them from paths of righteousness. Will we find the same thing happening in 50 years when men believe they know better then God, again, and makes the divide between the truth, and Satan's lies, even greater. God know best, all man has to do is follow his commandments, as found in the KJV of the bible, IMO.


So any translation that differs from the KJV is wrong, even if it is more faithful to the original text.

The natural conclusion from that is that the originals in Greek and Hebrew were wrong if an accurate translation of them differs from the KJV.

So why did the translators of the KJV work from texts at all? If they were being inspired by God to create his message in English exactly as God meant it to be then they could have picked up a quill pen and simply written what God inspired them to write, as it would have been correct.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
To change it is to take away from it and we are told that no man should add to, or take away from these things, which is exactly what a retranslation does. It changes the meaning of Scriptures.


According to that logic the Bible should never be translated into the venacular.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why should people undertake a course in Jacobean literacy before reading an errant translation?
Isn't a translation in modern, easily accsable English a better prospect -  


Not when it changes the meaning of the message. .


What if the change is a more accurate rendition of the Greek than the KJV is?


Not when it changes the meaning of the message.


But if it changes the meaning of the message FROM an inaccurate KJV one TO an accurate new one - in other words if it is a BETTER translation - then isn't that change a good thing?
The Boyg

cyberman wrote:
But if it changes the meaning of the message FROM an inaccurate KJV one TO an accurate new one - in other words if it is a BETTER translation - then isn't that change a good thing?


You won't change his mind on this. It's like young earth creationism. He believes that it is the way that God intended his message to be in English and anything that undermines this belief will be disregarded or dismissed.
trentvoyager

The Boyg wrote:
cyberman wrote:
But if it changes the meaning of the message FROM an inaccurate KJV one TO an accurate new one - in other words if it is a BETTER translation - then isn't that change a good thing?


You won't change his mind on this. It's like young earth creationism. He believes that it is the way that God intended his message to be in English and anything that undermines this belief will be disregarded or dismissed.




Wanders off muttering and shaking his head................
Powwow

Jim,
Please list all those translations that you use so we can go over their mistakes please.

I find it extremely funny that you rant about the style of English in my blessed King James Authorized Version. You see Jim every now and again you will post something in that Scot dialect that I can't read and understand. When I ask you to post it in English, I get a, why should I from you.  So if you really want anybody, ANYBODY AT ALL, to sympathize with your inability to read and understand the English in my wonderful translation, next time you post in your Scots, kindly also provide the translation I would be able to read and understand. Oh, and I really doubt you have picked up a KJV and tried to read it for many, many moons.
Jim

[quote="pow wow:116617"]Jim,
Please list all those translations that you use so we can go over their mistakes please.
NIV
NRSV
CEV
NLT
GNB
Lorimer
NJB
NEB (though the language is rather stultified)
I also have RSV, JB, Phillips, the Message, The Glasgow Bible to hand.
And the AV.
-

I find it extremely funny that you rant about the style of English in my blessed King James Authorized Version. You see Jim every now and again you will post something in that Scot dialect that I can't read and understand.  

-
Not 'dialect'; 'language - it came in with David I.
Happy to correct you, though.
Would you prefer Gaelic?
-

-When I ask you to post it in English, I get a, why should I from you.  So if you really want anybody, ANYBODY AT ALL, to sympathize with your inability to read and understand the English in my wonderful translation, next time you post in your Scots, kindly also provide the translation I would be able to read and understand. Oh, and I really doubt you have picked up a KJV and tried to read it for many, many moons.
-
The Jacobean English is not taught in schools. Why should it be taught in churches?
Oh, and it was through my KJV/AV that I accepted Christ...I couldn't understand the thing, so I took a shuftie at the Moffat translation in my school library..and then went shopping.
I use the KJV very occasionally - I used it last month when conducting a funeral; Psalm 23 sounds good in the poetic stuff...though innacurately translated. I shifted to the NLT for the Gospel reading, as the message was understood by everyone there, not just those of a 'certain age'.
There was a survey in 2011 taken in Scotland - to mark the 400th anniversary of the KJV.
The churches who responded gave the followwing percentages of their congregations who used KJV on a regular basis on Sundays:
CofS - 3%
Free CofS - 15%
Baptist - 16%
Methodist - 0%
Scottish Episcopal - 5%
Assemblies of God (Pentecostal) 15%.

Says it all, really.
Derek

[quote="The Boyg:116597"]
Ralph2 wrote:
How do you get more accurate then perfection. How do you produce a better version of the truth then the truth. The truth is a constant. It does not change. That being the case, the KJV is sufficient for our needs and contains the inspired word of God, which is as relevant today as it was 400 odd years ago. Rewriting it only changes the constant, called the truth, and plays into the hands of Satan, who is the master of lies and deciet, by changing the will of the father for his children by leading them from paths of righteousness. Will we find the same thing happening in 50 years when men believe they know better then God, again, and makes the divide between the truth, and Satan's lies, even greater. God know best, all man has to do is follow his commandments, as found in the KJV of the bible, IMO.


Quote:
So any translation that differs from the KJV is wrong, even if it is more faithful to the original text.


Not really, what ever inspired translation is used for the Germans is the best for them. The same goes for any translation for any culture. The KJV is intended for English speaking cultures. It superceded the Bishops translation

John Wycliffe was the first translator of the bible into English in the 1380's. The pope was very annoyed with his efforts. So much so that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river! You see, the Pope did not like the bible being translated out of Latin. Indeed, if you possessed one then you were summary executed. So, to translate it was a criminal offence so there were no authorised translations. John Hus got himself into the same bother when he tried to finish what John Wycliffe had started. He was burned at the stake in 1415, with Wycliffe’s manuscript Bibles used as kindling for the fire. Then, In 1496, John Colet, another Oxford professor and the son of the Mayor of London, started reading the New Testament in Greek and translating it into English for his students at Oxford, and later for the public at Saint Paul’s Cathedral in London. Fortunately, he had friends in high place and avoided the penalty of death for his discretions. By this time the Latin Vulgate had become so corrupt that it was barely recognisable with the Greek version.

And finally, we come to the first ever translation into the English language by William Tyndale. The “Architect of the English Language” He was much sort after by bounty hunters trying to arrest him for the terrible crime of translating. Having God's Word available to the public in the language of the common man, English, would have meant disaster to the church. No longer would they control access to the scriptures. If people were able to read the Bible in their own tongue, the church's income and power would crumble. Today, there are only two known copies left of Tyndale’s 1525-26 First Edition. Any copies printed prior to 1570 are extremely valuable.

Then came the controversial Great Bible. King Henry VIII creation that gave him the right to divorce his wife. King Henry responded by marrying his mistress anyway, (later having two of his many wives executed), and thumbing his nose at the Pope by renouncing Roman Catholicism, taking England out from under Rome’s religious control, and declaring himself as the reigning head of State to also be the new head of the Church. This new branch of the Christian Church, neither Roman Catholic nor truly Protestant, became known as the Anglican Church or the Church of England. King Henry acted essentially as its “Pope”. His first act was to further defy the wishes of Rome by funding the printing of the scriptures in English… the first legal English Bible… just for spite.

And we reach the precursor to the KJV of the bible. The Geneva Bible itself retains over 90% of William Tyndale's original English translation. Examination of the 1611 King James Bible shows clearly that its translators were influenced much more by the Geneva Bible, than by any other source.

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press. A typographical discrepancy in Ruth 3:15 rendered a pronoun "He" instead of "She" in that verse in some printings. This caused some of the 1611 First Editions to be known by collectors as "He" Bibles, and others as "She" Bibles. Starting just one year after the huge 1611 pulpit-size King James Bibles were printed and chained to every church pulpit in England; printing then began on the earliest normal-size printings of the King James Bible. These were produced so individuals could have their own personal copy of the Bible.

The King James Bible turned out to be an excellent and accurate translation, and it became the most printed book in the history of the world, and the only book with one billion copies in print.

Is there a need for another bible that has the ability to make Gods word any truer then what it is?  No, of course not. It is those who think they will make a name for themselves by saying "listen to me, listen to man, we know better then God"

Quote:
The natural conclusion from that is that the originals in Greek and Hebrew were wrong if an accurate translation of them differs from the KJV.the KJV was just the culmination of all translations before it solidifying it as the final and authorised version of the bible.


Well,  I have just demonstrated that this is exactly what happened.

Quote:
So why did the translators of the KJV work from texts at all? If they were being inspired by God to create his message in English exactly as God meant it to be then they could have picked up a quill pen and simply written what God inspired them to write, as it would have been correct.


Oh, I am pretty certain that this happened many times.
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:
Again, great chunks copied and pasted from elsewhere and without giving the source or checking infringement of copyright.  For the second time today: Please do not do this.
Derek

Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Again, great chunks copied and pasted from elsewhere and without giving the source or checking infringement of copyright.  For the second time today: Please do not do this.


Wrong.this is my version taken from a large volume of text and written in my own words. Because it has been presented in my words it requires no citing, other then to me. Even if it were as you say, the validity of the words still makes your faith apostate and satanic.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
Even if it were as you say, the validity of the words still makes your faith apostate and satanic.


Oh dear!

This wasn't a bad discussion up to now. I thought you said that you never attack anyone, you only retaliate.
Jim

Ralph2 wrote:
Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Again, great chunks copied and pasted from elsewhere and without giving the source or checking infringement of copyright.  For the second time today: Please do not do this.


Wrong.this is my version taken from a large volume of text and written in my own words. Because it has been presented in my words it requires no citing, other then to me. Even if it were as you say, the validity of the words still makes your faith apostate and satanic.

-

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#questions
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Wrong.this is my version taken from a large volume of text and written in my own words. Because it has been presented in my words it requires no citing, other then to me.


Well, that's bloody peculiar, because when two random samples of this large chunk of text - which I personally always do when it's abundantly clear that it's been lifted wholesale from elsewhere - are put into Google, it turns out that it actually belongs to a site called Greatsite.com: English Bible History.

It wasn't written and hasn't been presented in your own words at all.

This is a lie.

You have received two moderator warnings so far about copying and pasting large chunks of unattributed text. A third instance of this will result in a suspension of posting privileges.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Again, great chunks copied and pasted from elsewhere and without giving the source or checking infringement of copyright.  For the second time today: Please do not do this.


Wrong.this is my version taken from a large volume of text and written in my own words. Because it has been presented in my words it requires no citing, other then to me. Even if it were as you say, the validity of the words still makes your faith apostate and satanic.

-

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#questions


Every single question here is either a lie or their is a perfectly reasonable answer to it. Like the Apocrypha. It was a part of the KJV of the bible up until the 1880s when it was taken out without reason.

Did you know that these sites are set up to promote confrontation between Christians. It is telling that you know that it exists. Every bible is interconnected with each other.all bibles lead from it and progress to it. It will always be the inspired word of God from which all of his words flow.
Jim

Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Again, great chunks copied and pasted from elsewhere and without giving the source or checking infringement of copyright.  For the second time today: Please do not do this.


Wrong.this is my version taken from a large volume of text and written in my own words. Because it has been presented in my words it requires no citing, other then to me. Even if it were as you say, the validity of the words still makes your faith apostate and satanic.
 
-

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#questions


Every single question here is either a lie or their is a perfectly reasonable answer to it. Like the Apocrypha. It was a part of the KJV of the bible up until the 1880s when it was taken out without reason.

Did you know that these sites are set up to promote confrontation between Christians. It is telling that you know that it exists. Every bible is interconnected with each other.all bibles lead from it and progress to it. It will always be the inspired word of God from which all of his words flow.


-
Eh?
Do you REALLY believe all Bibles are decended from the KJV?
Do you REALLY believe it is unique?
Better not read the Geneva Bible, then, because over 80% of it is word-for word identical with the KJV.
Indeed, a group of Presbyterians and Puritans complained that the KJV was a 'poor plagerism' of the Geneva - in 1623!
Derek

Jim wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Again, great chunks copied and pasted from elsewhere and without giving the source or checking infringement of copyright.  For the second time today: Please do not do this.


Wrong.this is my version taken from a large volume of text and written in my own words. Because it has been presented in my words it requires no citing, other then to me. Even if it were as you say, the validity of the words still makes your faith apostate and satanic.
 
-

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#questions


Every single question here is either a lie or their is a perfectly reasonable answer to it. Like the Apocrypha. It was a part of the KJV of the bible up until the 1880s when it was taken out without reason.

Did you know that these sites are set up to promote confrontation between Christians. It is telling that you know that it exists. Every bible is interconnected with each other.all bibles lead from it and progress to it. It will always be the inspired word of God from which all of his words flow.


-
Eh?
Do you REALLY believe all Bibles are decended from the KJV?
Do you REALLY believe it is unique?
Better not read the Geneva Bible, then, because over 80% of it is word-for word identical with the KJV.
Indeed, a group of Presbyterians and Puritans complained that the KJV was a 'poor plagerism' of the Geneva - in 1623!


Oh, 90% of the Geneva bible is the same as the KJV of the bible. The KJV was taken from the Geneva Bible, amongst others. Would you say the same about the Matthew-Tyndale Bible. Or John Wycliffe Bible to the translation of John Hus.

I have to say that it is really strange reading the desecration of the word of God that has been written by a Christian, or a self proclaimed Christian anyway.

All bibles stem from the authorised KJV of the bible. The Geneva bible went out of print in 1644. If it were the inspired word of God it would have stayed in print until today, just like the KJV is, instead of a few decades God was still in the process of inspiring and concluded with the KJV
Powwow

Jim,
So not one of these dialects then?
http://www.scotslanguage.com/books/view/117/3212

Whatever it is, I can't read nor understand it. But thanks for not giving a hoot about me wanting to know what you wrote. And right back at you.

So what you are telling us is that you don't have a perfect translation and you read from as many versions as you can.

Let us know when you find a translation that has no mistakes in it.
Powwow

Jim,
Your unscientific survey doesn't explain why the KJV remains the second best seller after the NIV. The NIV is a good version in my opinion.
Sebastian Toe

Personally I think that the Palin bible has a certain je ne sais quoi about it in parts!

http://www.funnyordie.com/articles/23b71a5aec/sarah-palin-s-bible
Rose

pow wow wrote:
Jim,
Your unscientific survey doesn't explain why the KJV remains the second best seller after the NIV. The NIV is a good version in my opinion.


I think some people like it because in some ways it is poetic!
The KJV!
Julie
Jim

[quote="pow wow:116687"]Jim,
So not one of these dialects then?
http://www.scotslanguage.com/books/view/117/3212
     
Whatever it is, I can't read nor understand it. But thanks for not giving a hoot about me wanting to know what you wrote. And right back at you.
-
Of course they are dialects - dialects of Scots!
The predominant languages of Alba were Norse, Gaelic and a dwindling Brythonic Welsh when David I returned from captivity, bringing Anglo-Saxon friends with him. They, and their retinue, joined with the native population, and the languages merged over three or four generations, By 1215, thelaws of Scotland were being promulgated in Scots, legal documents were written in Scots, and the first examples of Scots translation of poetry (and a few Scriptures) was evident.
By 1245, there were signs of the first stirring of dialect - if Lexi were still looking in, she might have been chuffed to note that it was a kind of 'proto-Doric'.
-

So what you are telling us is that you don't have a perfect translation and you read from as many versions as you can.
-
By jove, I think he's got it!
-

Let us know when you find a translation that has no mistakes in it.
-
Ain't no such animal.
Yhe English language has changed markedly in use and meaning since 1611 - translators need to keep up, or the Scriptures cease to be the witness to God's sovreign grace, and become, as Shaker suggested, mere works of literary referance.
Jim

pow wow wrote:
Jim,
Your unscientific survey doesn't explain why the KJV remains the second best seller after the NIV. The NIV is a good version in my opinion.


What "unscientific survey"?
Is a BBC inspired survey carried out by a well known opinion poll firm "Unscientific"?
DI'm glad to know you have the figures for Bible translations sold in Scotland.
Could I have them, please?
Because the last figures I have - admittedly from WH.Smiths and Wesley Owen (Bookshops, the latter a chain of Christian bookshops) dates from 2003.
The biggest seller was the Good News Bible, followed by the New International, the New Jerusalem and the MNessage.
The KJV was fifth.
LeClerc

Hi Ralph

What was King Jame's motive for insisting that the Greek word Ekklesia should be translated Church, and not congregation.. (see rule 3), William Tyndale's translation (1526) used the term "congregation."

From in depth study, we have come to believe that there was a conspiracy to suppress the true definition of ekklesia, replacing it with a new definition translated church. Though one can’t be quite sure when, it appears it was with the King James translation, in about 1611.

Regards

LeClerc
Derek

LeClerc wrote:
Hi Ralph

What was King Jame's motive for insisting that the Greek word Ekklesia should be translated Church, and not congregation.. (see rule 3), William Tyndale's translation (1526) used the term "congregation."

From in depth study, we have come to believe that there was a conspiracy to suppress the true definition of ekklesia, replacing it with a new definition translated church. Though one can’t be quite sure when, it appears it was with the King James translation, in about 1611.

Regards

LeClerc


Christ's Ekklesia and The Church Compared

Richard Anthony

Matthew 16:18, "…And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church (Greek - ekklesia)…"

In Strong's Greek Concordance, the word ekklesia (word #1577) is defined as "an assembly," and it's from the word "ek," (word #1537) which means "out of"; and the word "klesis" (word #2821) which means "a calling." So ekklesia means to be called out, and obviously Christ is the one that's calling us out. But is that the first time we were ever called out?

That was King James specific edict. He has no jurisdiction over the congregation (people), but he does over the church (physical buildings). So you can see he never wanted the word "assembly" associated with the original meaning of the Old Testament which meant "congregation." So he knew the correct translation, obviously, but he didn't want it in there, that way they retain control over "the church."

The Mormon church claim that Jesus Christ is the head of their church. That he guides and directs it through his prophets and servants. It is registered as such having no individual person as its owner. The Roman Catholic church has a man as the head of the church. The Church of England has a woman. That is not what god wanted. He also did not want paid clergy, which just about makes the Mormon church the only true church on planet earth because it survives from tithes, as God instructed. Seems that the world is full of unauthorised denomination consisting of men and women who are paid to preach.

Churches are Businesses
All Churches, including the incorporated Church, unincorporated Church, unregistered Church, etc., are under the jurisdiction of man. These Churches define themselves in particular ways that you do not find in scripture. In other words, Christ did not define his ekklesia to be those things. These designations were created by the natural man, because Christ never defines His ekklesia to be incorporated or unincorporated. The laws of man have jurisdiction over the Church because they are man-made terms, and man has jurisdiction over man-made things. Whoever creates something is the same who controls something, and he retains the authority and the power to alter or destroy at will. So, if man creates an organization, no matter what he calls it, then man controls it. If God creates an organization, then He is the one who should control it.

If a church is incorporated by the State, they are legally defined as a business. And they are doing business on the so-called "Lord's day," which is prohibited by God. One of the evidences to show that they are truly a business, even if they are not incorporated, is that they want the money up front. In other words, they pass the plate before they even preach the Word of God. That's limited liability on their part, that's business, that's commercial activity, that's selling the word of God.

In other words, "I have the money up front, and if you don't like what I have to say, too bad. Even if I don't preach the Word of God, too bad. It doesn't matter, I already got my money. Besides, you won't know any different because I'm going to throw "Jesus Christ" in there now and then to make it 'sound' good. It'll look just like the Pharisees looked. I'll tickle your ears (2 Timothy 4:3-4)."

One of the original reasons for incorporating back in 1810 were things like, "I'm a pastor and I need a salary. I don't want to be paid by fee anymore. I want my guarantee of making a living at this." Which is directly against scripture. We're not supposed to make a living from the Gospel. Paul made tents! That calling was used to get him across from place to place to preach the gospel. Paul did not run up to people and say, "Hey! Give me 5 bucks and I'll tell you what it's all about." Today's pastor basically does that. When you walk into a church today, the church passes around a collection plate and basically compells you to give them money to hear what they have to say. And if you don't give any money, you are looked down upon by others. Churches have even told its congregation that it is a sin if you do not give them money (tithe). What you hear from modern pulpits is nothing more than what's called a sophist, which means "one who preaches ethics for payment." The Gospel is a life (1 Corinthians 9:14). If you are living the gospel, how do you make money off it? If you're living something you can't charge for it, because people see the witness that you bear, because you see and do things differently.

A State Church is a Church that is recognized by the State, serves the State, provides revenue for the State, and serves a public purpose that is not contrary to established public policy. State Churches are registered with the State, with tax identification numbers. State Churches are producers of revenue for the State by paying taxes to assure the alleged solvency of the tax system. Taxable organizations are answerable to the government, open to the inspection and dictates of the government. State Churches are agents of the State by confiscating and remitting to the State taxes that the State has ordered the Church to confiscate. State Churches are servants of the State by keeping records for and remitting records to the State. Most Churches today, whether incorporated or not, are State Churches.

Acts 7:44-52 is what Stephen preached just before being stoned to death. He said that God "dwelleth not in temples made with hands" (Acts 7:48). In other words, God does not dwell in "Churches" or any other buildings, our body is now the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells within us (Romans 8:9-11, 1 Corinthians 3:16,17; 6:19-20, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Revelation 21:3). I love this, it confirms that the Church of Ralph is in keeping with God's will. Believers are now "God's building" (1 Corinthians 3:9, 1 Peter 2:5, Ephesians 2:19-22). We are to glorify God in our body in spirit and truth (John 4:23-24, 1 Corinthians 6:20), not in buildings made with man's hands.

Hosea 8:6, "...the workman made it; therefore it is not God."

Isaiah 17:7-8, "At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel. And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made..."

We should not localize God:

Acts 7:49, "Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?"

1 Kings 8:27, "…behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?"

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/ekklesia.html

I know what you are getting at LeClerc, however, it is irrelevant to God's intentions for the bible and his plan of salvation. What ever it contains today is exactly what God wants it to contain. The argument that challenges its accuracy and readability is a fallacious one, a smoke screen that hides the unscrupulous faiths desire to get acceptance for their pie in the sky belief in the trinity.

It has been in publication longer then any other bible. It has sold more copies then any other bible. Most new versions of the bibles last for but a short time, with the exception of the Geneva Bible, which, I believe, was in print for 100 years. The KJV has been in print for 400 years. Four time longer then the Geneva Bible. Any one with half a brain would have to ask why it is such a popular bible.

The reason is that when a man reads it's pages, with a desire to know the one and only true God, the spirit of God testifies to their souls that God lives. Why does it do this? Because the translation has been authorised and sanctioned by God himself. It contains exactly what God wants it to contain, which makes it Holy. That is why we are still reading it and why it is still a best seller. All others versions are fleeting. Here today, gone tomorrow. Hell, even the Book of Mormon has been in print longer then any failed translation of the Bible, over 200 years. How can anyone suggest that we should change the KJV when it has been so successful in bringing millions of souls unto Christ. Shame on them.1
LeClerc

Morning Ralph

Ralph2 wrote:


The Mormon church claim that Jesus Christ is the head of their church.



Their church ?

The set apart sssembly belongs to YHWH, not the Mormons.

Ralph2 wrote:
It is registered as such having no individual person as its owner.



Is not YHWH the owner of His set apart assembly ?

Regards

LeClerc
Derek

[quote="LeClerc:116802"]Morning Ralph

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:


The Mormon church claim that Jesus Christ is the head of their church.



Quote:
Their church ?


Well, yes, but that is just me using terminology that I have been conditioned with.

Quote:
The set apart sssembly belongs to YHWH, not the Mormons.


Well no, that is what this is about. No one can own the mind and will of the ”assembly”, which is why King James change it to ”church ”

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
It is registered as such having no individual person as its owner.



Quote:
Is not YHWH the owner of His set apart assembly ?

Well no, that is what this is about. No one can own the mind and will of the ”assembly”, which is why King James change it to ”church ”
Jim

[quote="Ralph2:116814"]
LeClerc wrote:
Morning Ralph

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:


The Mormon church claim that Jesus Christ is the head of their church.



Quote:
Their church ?


Well, yes, but that is just me using terminology that I have been conditioned with.

Quote:
The set apart sssembly belongs to YHWH, not the Mormons.


Well no, that is what this is about. No one can own the mind and will of the ”assembly”, which is why King James change it to ”church ”

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
It is registered as such having no individual person as its owner.



Quote:
Is not YHWH the owner of His set apart assembly ?

Well no, that is what this is about. No one can own the mind and will of the ”assembly”, which is why King James change it to ”church ”

-
Can I suggest you read a bit about 'Jamie the Saxt' before going any further, Ralph? His tutelage under Buchanan, his infatuation with his cousin (Esmee Stuart...another Piers Gaveston writ small), and his theories on the "Divine right of Kings" which spurred him to biads the KJV to suit his ends...those same ends he foisted onto his incompetant son Charles, whose interferance in the Scottish church led to the disasterous "War of the three Kingdoms" which some call the English Civil War?
-
Derek

[quote="Jim:116816"]
Ralph2 wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Morning Ralph

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:


The Mormon church claim that Jesus Christ is the head of their church.



Quote:
Their church ?


Well, yes, but that is just me using terminology that I have been conditioned with.

Quote:
The set apart sssembly belongs to YHWH, not the Mormons.


Well no, that is what this is about. No one can own the mind and will of the ”assembly”, which is why King James change it to ”church ”

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
It is registered as such having no individual person as its owner.



Quote:
Is not YHWH the owner of His set apart assembly ?

Well no, that is what this is about. No one can own the mind and will of the ”assembly”, which is why King James change it to ”church ”

-
Can I suggest you read a bit about 'Jamie the Saxt' before going any further, Ralph? His tutelage under Buchanan, his infatuation with his cousin (Esmee Stuart...another Piers Gaveston writ small), and his theories on the "Divine right of Kings" which spurred him to biads the KJV to suit his ends...those same ends he foisted onto his incompetant son Charles, whose interferance in the Scottish church led to the disasterous "War of the three Kingdoms" which some call the English Civil War?
-


You can suggest, by all means, however your suggestion indicates that I am under the impressionthat King James was a saint. I don't. What I do know is that because God is omniscient he would have known King James very thoughts. He would have taken it into consideration and the KJV of the bible would have still contained exactly what he wanted it to contain. 400 ears and counting tell us that it's a God inspired work. Millions of converts to Christianity tell us that it is Holy. Over a billion copies tell us that when men read its pages that it is the word of God they read. Bibles may come and go, however, the inspired word of God will remain with us.
LeClerc

Hi Ralph

Ralph2 wrote:


Well no, that is what this is about. No one can own the mind and will of the ”assembly”, which is why King James change it to ”church ”


Lets turn to Psalm 22 verse 22 v in the KJB

22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

To quote the above verse in the Messianic Writings (New Testament), bearing in mind what you have posted, how would the meaning of the above verse read if ''congregation'' was changed to church ?

Regards

LeClerc
bnabernard

Bearing in mind what JMC say's regarding the omnipresence of God and how His presence would 'oversee' all bible translations it would seem then that the veil one has to see beyond is the very bible itself.

Hmm, I seem to remember something about the uselessness of pouring over scripture for a sign, and it would seem that though a sign is given no more notice is taken of it than those who had signs performed by Moses.

bernard (hug)
LeClerc

Hi Ralph

Ralph2 wrote:


Well no, that is what this is about. No one can own the mind and will of the ”assembly”, which is why King James change it to ”church ”


Lets turn to Psalm 22 verse 22 v in the KJB

22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

To quote the above verse in the Messianic Writings (New Testament), bearing in mind what you have posted, how would the meaning of the above verse read if ''congregation'' was changed to church ?

Also Ralph if we turn to Acts 7

44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.


Should Jesus read Jesus or Joshua ?

Regards

LeClerc
bnabernard

Joshua, but the greeks got their hands on it.

bernard (hug)
Derek

[quote="LeClerc:117254"]
Quote:
Hi Ralph

Ralph2 wrote:


Well no, that is what this is about. No one can own the mind and will of the ”assembly”, which is why King James change it to ”church ”


Lets turn to Psalm 22 verse 22 v in the KJB

22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

To quote the above verse in the Messianic Writings (New Testament), bearing in mind what you have posted, how would the meaning of the above verse read if ''congregation'' was changed to church ?


Congregation is a group of individual with a common belief.  Church is the building in which they meet. Buildings can be owned, people cannot.

Quote:
Also Ralph if we turn to Acts 7

44 Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;
46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.


Should Jesus read Jesus or Joshua ?


It reads exactly how God wants it to read.  To ask if it should read something else is to question Gods ability to inspire the compilation of his written word.
LeClerc

Ralph2 wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Ralph

Ralph2 wrote:


Well no, that is what this is about. No one can own the mind and will of the ”assembly”, which is why King James change it to ”church ”


Lets turn to Psalm 22 verse 22 v in the KJB

22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

To quote the above verse in the Messianic Writings (New Testament), bearing in mind what you have posted, how would the meaning of the above verse read if ''congregation'' was changed to church ?


Congregation is a group of individual with a common belief.  Church is the building in which they meet. Buildings can be owned, people cannot.



Okay Ralph.

If now turn to the Messianic writings.

Hebrews 2 KJV
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

The writer of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 22 verse 2.

Now referring back to Psalm 22 verse 22 in the KJB

22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

Whose name is being declared and who are the congregation ?

Regards

LeClerc
IvyOwl

Quote:
No, not that sort of knowledge.


I suppose it was inevitabe Shaker that this thread would go off at a 'my interpretation is better than yours' sort of tangent! Did you expect it not to?
Derek

LeClerc wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Hi Ralph

Ralph2 wrote:


Well no, that is what this is about. No one can own the mind and will of the ”assembly”, which is why King James change it to ”church ”


Lets turn to Psalm 22 verse 22 v in the KJB

22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

To quote the above verse in the Messianic Writings (New Testament), bearing in mind what you have posted, how would the meaning of the above verse read if ''congregation'' was changed to church ?


Congregation is a group of individual with a common belief.  Church is the building in which they meet. Buildings can be owned, people cannot.



Okay Ralph.

If now turn to the Messianic writings.

Hebrews 2 KJV
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

The writer of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 22 verse 2.

Now referring back to Psalm 22 verse 22 in the KJB

22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

Whose name is being declared and who are the congregation ?

Regards

LeClerc


The name of the Son of God is being declared.

Well,  we know who the "congregation are.  They are the people who worship God.  Let me quote from a very interesting article on it that confirms both points. .

He (King James) has no jurisdiction over the congregation (people), but he does over the church (physical buildings). So you can see he never wanted the word "assembly" associated with the original meaning of the Old Testament which meant "congregation." So he knew the correct translation, obviously, but he didn't want it in there, that way they retain control over "the church."

For example, the New Testament, at Hebrews 2:12, quotes the Old Testament, at Psalms 22:22, word for word. The word "congregation" in the Greek is "ekklesia." But since King James forbade replacing this Greek word with "congregation" (the true interpretation), it was replaced with a word which has a totally different meaning:

Psalms 22:22, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee."

Hebrews 2:12, "Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee."

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/ekklesia.html
Jim

[quote="Ralph2:116826"][quote="Jim:116816"]
Ralph2 wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Morning Ralph

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:


The Mormon church claim that Jesus Christ is the head of their church.



Quote:
Their church ?


Well, yes, but that is just me using terminology that I have been conditioned with.

Quote:
The set apart sssembly belongs to YHWH, not the Mormons.


Well no, that is what this is about. No one can own the mind and will of the ”assembly”, which is why King James change it to ”church ”

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
It is registered as such having no individual person as its owner.



Quote:
Is not YHWH the owner of His set apart assembly ?

Well no, that is what this is about. No one can own the mind and will of the ”assembly”, which is why King James change it to ”church ”

-
Can I suggest you read a bit about 'Jamie the Saxt' before going any further, Ralph? His tutelage under Buchanan, his infatuation with his cousin (Esmee Stuart...another Piers Gaveston writ small), and his theories on the "Divine right of Kings" which spurred him to biads the KJV to suit his ends...those same ends he foisted onto his incompetant son Charles, whose interferance in the Scottish church led to the disasterous "War of the three Kingdoms" which some call the English Civil War?
-


You can suggest, by all means, however your suggestion indicates that I am under the impressionthat King James was a saint. I don't. What I do know is that because God is omniscient he would have known King James very thoughts. He would have taken it into consideration and the KJV of the bible would have still contained exactly what he wanted it to contain.-

.....and then God Changed His mind...several times...as the need to revise, correct, change and retranslate the error strewn 1611 version became clear. Bit remiss of God to fill His'inspired' Word with errors, wasn't it?
-

400 years and countingtell us that it's a God inspired work. Millions of converts to Christianity tell us that it is Holy. Over a billion copies tell us that when men read its pages that it is the word of God they read. Bibles may come and go, however, the inspired word of God will remain with us.
-
Amen - in eways which mean modern peoplle can access it in a language they understand, and including the best MSS evidence, scholarship, linguistic ability and peer-reviewed scrutiny available today.

er....
Derek

[quote="Jim:117311"][quote="Ralph2:116826"]
Jim wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
LeClerc wrote:
Morning Ralph

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:


The Mormon church claim that Jesus Christ is the head of their church.



Quote:
Their church ?


Well, yes, but that is just me using terminology that I have been conditioned with.

Quote:
The set apart sssembly belongs to YHWH, not the Mormons.


Well no, that is what this is about. No one can own the mind and will of the ”assembly”, which is why King James change it to ”church ”

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
It is registered as such having no individual person as its owner.



Quote:
Is not YHWH the owner of His set apart assembly ?

Well no, that is what this is about. No one can own the mind and will of the ”assembly”, which is why King James change it to ”church ”

-
Can I suggest you read a bit about 'Jamie the Saxt' before going any further, Ralph? His tutelage under Buchanan, his infatuation with his cousin (Esmee Stuart...another Piers Gaveston writ small), and his theories on the "Divine right of Kings" which spurred him to biads the KJV to suit his ends...those same ends he foisted onto his incompetant son Charles, whose interferance in the Scottish church led to the disasterous "War of the three Kingdoms" which some call the English Civil War?
-


You can suggest, by all means, however your suggestion indicates that I am under the impressionthat King James was a saint. I don't. What I do know is that because God is omniscient he would have known King James very thoughts. He would have taken it into consideration and the KJV of the bible would have still contained exactly what he wanted it to contain.-

.....and then God Changed His mind...several times...as the need to revise, correct, change and retranslate the error strewn 1611 version became clear. Bit remiss of God to fill His'inspired' Word with errors, wasn't it?
-

400 years and countingtell us that it's a God inspired work. Millions of converts to Christianity tell us that it is Holy. Over a billion copies tell us that when men read its pages that it is the word of God they read. Bibles may come and go, however, the inspired word of God will remain with us.
-
Amen - in eways which mean modern peoplle can access it in a language they understand, and including the best MSS evidence, scholarship, linguistic ability and peer-reviewed scrutiny available today.

er....


That is for you to believe.  God has produced his inspired work a tad over 400 years ago. The KJV of the bible,  containing the everlasting word of God.  He does not require his word to be retranslated as he is God omniscient and omnipotent. God is the same today, tomorrow and for all times.  People may change, as you have said, however,  God does not.  His word has been revealed,  it contains all that is required for good men to come unto Christ.  To suggest that his words are flawed is nothing short of mockery and sacrilege.
trentvoyager

Quote:
God has produced his inspired work a tad over 400 years ago. The KJV of the bible,  containing the everlasting word of God.  He does not require his word to be retranslated as he is God omniscient and omnipotent. God is the same today, tomorrow and for all times.  People may change, as you have said, however,  God does not.  His word has been revealed,  it contains all that is required for good men to come unto Christ.  To suggest that his words are flawed is nothing short of mockery and sacrilege.



As an argument this does not make any sense. I have no idea whether or not the KJV is a good translation or not - but to suggest that it is unchanging and fixed as an interpretation of the Bible is nonsense. As more and more scholars find out more and more about ancient languages it is right and proper that those inprovements in understanding are reflected in the Bible.

An argument that stems from a poster syaing it is the unchanging word of God is actually the poster saying this is my favourite and everyone should read it and adhere to it. All utter nonsense. What about the Christians that existed for the £1000 plus years without the KJV?

The KJV was written by men, not God - inspired by God if you think that, but written by good old fallible men. Furthermore men who did not have the benefit of the siginificant improvements that have been made in the last century or so in understanding ancient languages. Your argument just fails all over the place.
Jim

Ralph:
Why is the word "Easter" in the KJV?
The word, and term were unknown to the original writers...and had they known it, would never have used it...an error in translation, and one of many.
Jim

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
God has produced his inspired work a tad over 400 years ago. The KJV of the bible,  containing the everlasting word of God.  He does not require his word to be retranslated as he is God omniscient and omnipotent. God is the same today, tomorrow and for all times.  People may change, as you have said, however,  God does not.  His word has been revealed,  it contains all that is required for good men to come unto Christ.  To suggest that his words are flawed is nothing short of mockery and sacrilege.



As an argument this does not make any sense. I have no idea whether or not the KJV is a good translation or not - but to suggest that it is unchanging and fixed as an interpretation of the Bible is nonsense. As more and more scholars find out more and more about ancient languages it is right and proper that those inprovements in understanding are reflected in the Bible.

An argument that stems from a poster syaing it is the unchanging word of God is actually the poster saying this is my favourite and everyone should read it and adhere to it. All utter nonsense. What about the Christians that existed for the £1000 plus years without the KJV?

The KJV was written by men, not God - inspired by God if you think that, but written by good old fallible men. Furthermore men who did not have the benefit of the siginificant improvements that have been made in the last century or so in understanding ancient languages. Your argument just fails all over the place.



Don't tell him, Pike. It's virtually impossible to get through to KJV only-ers - despite the discovery of earlier MSS, improvement in linguistics, and frequent rewriting of the KJV itself, they won't accept the fact - repeat fact - that, although for its' time it was a reasonable translation, that time has long passed.
LeClerc

Hi Ralph

Ralph2 wrote:


Well,  we know who the "congregation are.  They are the people who worship God.  Let me quote from a very interesting article on it that confirms both points. .

He (King James) has no jurisdiction over the congregation (people), but he does over the church (physical buildings). So you can see he never wanted the word "assembly" associated with the original meaning of the Old Testament which meant "congregation." So he knew the correct translation, obviously, but he didn't want it in there, that way they retain control over "the church."

For example, the New Testament, at Hebrews 2:12, quotes the Old Testament, at Psalms 22:22, word for word. The word "congregation" in the Greek is "ekklesia." But since King James forbade replacing this Greek word with "congregation" (the true interpretation), it was replaced with a word which has a totally different meaning:

Psalms 22:22, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee."

Hebrews 2:12, "Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee."

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/ekklesia.html


No more to be said then Ralph if you are in agreement with what you posted above.

Quote:

For example, the New Testament, at Hebrews 2:12, quotes the Old Testament, at Psalms 22:22, word for word. The word "congregation" in the Greek is "ekklesia." But since King James forbade replacing this Greek word with "congregation" (the true interpretation), it was replaced with a word which has a totally different meaning:



Regards

LeClerc
Derek

[quote="trentvoyager:117317"]
Quote:
Quote:
God has produced his inspired work a tad over 400 years ago. The KJV of the bible,  containing the everlasting word of God.  He does not require his word to be retranslated as he is God omniscient and omnipotent. God is the same today, tomorrow and for all times.  People may change, as you have said, however,  God does not.  His word has been revealed,  it contains all that is required for good men to come unto Christ.  To suggest that his words are flawed is nothing short of mockery and sacrilege.





As an argument this does not make any sense. I have no idea whether or not the KJV is a good translation or not - but to suggest that it is unchanging and fixed as an interpretation of the Bible is nonsense. As more and more scholars find out more and more about ancient languages it is right and proper that those inprovements in understanding are reflected in the Bible.


God is omniscient,  knowing the beginning from the end. If there was a better and more accurate way in which to translate his word then he would have used it. He decided that the KJV of the bible was sufficient,  which is why it is still in use today.  It bring men unto Christ because its words are God inspired and therefore holy.

Quote:
An argument that stems from a poster syaing it is the unchanging word of God is actually the poster saying this is my favourite and everyone should read it and adhere to it. All utter nonsense. What about the Christians that existed for the £1000 plus years without the KJV?


I have become used to reading the KJV of the bible. I would not call it my favourite. It is the only inspired version available so there is no other choice.

When the last Deciple was killed the Holy Priesthood, after the order of the Son of God, went with him. The earth was left without any priesthood power.  The Great Apostasy had begun. The only bibles that existed could only be read by the few. You have not researched your response,  therefore,  your response holds no weight.


Quote:
The KJV was written by men, not God - inspired by God if you think that, but written by good old fallible men. Furthermore men who did not have the benefit of the siginificant improvements that have been made in the last century or so in understanding ancient languages. Your argument just fails all over the place.


Yes, the Original transcripts were written by man. The KJV is a translation and not an authored writing. Those who translated it were inspired by a omniscient God.  Of course he had the significant improvements that have been made in the last century or so in understanding ancient languages. He is omniscient. They were just unnecessary. God knows best.

You fail to understand the meaning of the word "omniscient"  or understand the nature of God which makes your response ill informed and positively wrong.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Ralph:
Why is the word "Easter" in the KJV?
The word, and term were unknown to the original writers...and had they known it, would never have used it...an error in translation, and one of many.


This person is using a technique that by discrediting the argument will discredit the believer in it,  and visa versa. Stupify the argument rather then put forward a genuine argument that will clearly show that other bibles are better than the KJV.  He is doing what I have been accused of doing here by TV.  Playing favourites and criticising any other contender of the truth. 400 years of souils that have been brought unto Christ stands as testimony that the KJV of the bible is Holy and inspired.
Derek

LeClerc wrote:
Hi Ralph

Ralph2 wrote:


Well,  we know who the "congregation are.  They are the people who worship God.  Let me quote from a very interesting article on it that confirms both points. .

He (King James) has no jurisdiction over the congregation (people), but he does over the church (physical buildings). So you can see he never wanted the word "assembly" associated with the original meaning of the Old Testament which meant "congregation." So he knew the correct translation, obviously, but he didn't want it in there, that way they retain control over "the church."

For example, the New Testament, at Hebrews 2:12, quotes the Old Testament, at Psalms 22:22, word for word. The word "congregation" in the Greek is "ekklesia." But since King James forbade replacing this Greek word with "congregation" (the true interpretation), it was replaced with a word which has a totally different meaning:

Psalms 22:22, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee."

Hebrews 2:12, "Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee."

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/ekklesia.html


No more to be said then Ralph if you are in agreement with what you posted above.

Quote:

For example, the New Testament, at Hebrews 2:12, quotes the Old Testament, at Psalms 22:22, word for word. The word "congregation" in the Greek is "ekklesia." But since King James forbade replacing this Greek word with "congregation" (the true interpretation), it was replaced with a word which has a totally different meaning:



Regards

LeClerc


Yes,  LeClerc,  I am. I do not attend a synagogue or any other establishment made of bricks and mortar. It is good to see that the truth is shared by at least two of us here.
trentvoyager

Quote:
You fail to understand the meaning of the word "omniscient"


I do not fail to understand it at all - what I fail to understand is how an omniscient God can not disseminate his/her information in a sensible way.

So all the other Bibles were incorrect then? They were not the inspired word of God?

Quote:
He decided that the KJV of the bible was sufficient,  which is why it is still in use today.


Can you perhaps link to a reference that tells us God decided the KJV Bible was sufficient - also how he/she communicated that thought?
Sebastian Toe

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
You fail to understand the meaning of the word "omniscient"


I do not fail to understand it at all - what I fail to understand is how an omniscient God can not disseminate his/her information in a sensible way.

So all the other Bibles were incorrect then? They were not the inspired word of God?

Quote:
He decided that the KJV of the bible was sufficient,  which is why it is still in use today.


Can you perhaps link to a reference that tells us God decided the KJV Bible was sufficient - also how he/she communicated that thought?


Does anyone know what the equivalent final/approved/everlasting bibles are in languages other than English?
Derek

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
You fail to understand the meaning of the word "omniscient"


I do not fail to understand it at all - what I fail to understand is how an omniscient God can not disseminate his/her information in a sensible way.


He did. It is called the King James Authorised Version of the Bible

Quote:
So all the other Bibles were incorrect then? They were not the inspired word of God?


The longest that a bible has been in print,  other then the KJV is the Geneva Bible. The rest failed and will continue to fail because they are not inspired.

Quote:
Quote:
He decided that the KJV of the bible was sufficient,  which is why it is still in use today.


Can you perhaps link to a reference that tells us God decided the KJV Bible was sufficient - also how he/she communicated that thought?


May I suggest you read the story of the translation of the KJV of the bible. A link is not required.  It has succeeded where others have failed.  That is because the spirit of God testifies to that which is true. When reading the KJV the Holy Ghost testifies that it is truth. 400 years of bringing men unto Christ is sufficient evidence,  for most people.
trentvoyager

Quote:
May I suggest you read the story of the translation of the KJV of the bible. A link is not required.  It has succeeded where others have failed.  That is because the spirit of God testifies to that which is true. When reading the KJV the Holy Ghost testifies that it is truth. 400 years of bringing men unto Christ is sufficient evidence,  for most people.


This is just you asserting the case. This is in no way proof of anything.

Quote:
When reading the KJV the Holy Ghost testifies that it is truth


How does the Holy Ghost do this - and how does it single out the KJV over other Bibles?
Derek

Sebastian Toe wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
You fail to understand the meaning of the word "omniscient"


I do not fail to understand it at all - what I fail to understand is how an omniscient God can not disseminate his/her information in a sensible way.

So all the other Bibles were incorrect then? They were not the inspired word of God?

Quote:
He decided that the KJV of the bible was sufficient,  which is why it is still in use today.


Can you perhaps link to a reference that tells us God decided the KJV Bible was sufficient - also how he/she communicated that thought?


Does anyone know what the equivalent final/approved/everlasting bibles are in languages other than English?


Martin Luther the German Pentateuch in 1523 and the German New Testament in 1529
Derek

[quote="trentvoyager:117327"]
Quote:
Quote:
May I suggest you read the story of the translation of the KJV of the bible. A link is not required.  It has succeeded where others have failed.  That is because the spirit of God testifies to that which is true. When reading the KJV the Holy Ghost testifies that it is truth. 400 years of bringing men unto Christ is sufficient evidence,  for most people.


This is just you asserting the case. This is in no way proof of anything.


Is it?

Quote:
Quote:
When reading the KJV the Holy Ghost testifies that it is truth


How does the Holy Ghost do this - and how does it single out the KJV over other Bibles?


To those who really want to know it testifies to their spirit.

It has brought more men unto Christ then any other book in existence.  Its success testifies of its authenticity. All,  what other bibles. Every single bible preceding it has gone out of print,  including the Geneva bible which went in 1644.  Midst bibles that exist today are second choice to the KJV with many of those out of print.  The KJV has been proven as being capable to convert men to Christianity.

Now enough of the contravention of Occam's Razor by looking for anything that could prove the idea of changing the text in the bible as a good idea, which will inevitably change meanings. The incessant need to look for anything that contradicts the most simplistic explanation only creates contention and futile, unproductive  debate.
trentvoyager

Quote:
Now enough of the contravention of Occam's Razor by looking for anything that could prove the idea of changing the text in the bible as a good idea, which will inevitably change meanings. The incessant need to look for anything that contradicts the most simplistic explanation only creates contention and futile, unproductive  debate.



It simply won't do. It won't do because the KJV changed things that had gone before - therefore they must have had reasons to do so. If later scholars come across enough evidence to change things again - in the interest of truth shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

Couldn't people at the time that KJV was conceived have argued exactly what you have just argued above?
Jim

Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Ralph:
Why is the word "Easter" in the KJV?
The word, and term were unknown to the original writers...and had they known it, would never have used it...an error in translation, and one of many.


This person is using a technique that by discrediting the argument will discredit the believer in it,  and visa versa. Stupify the argument rather then put forward a genuine argument that will clearly show that other bibles are better than the KJV.  He is doing what I have been accused of doing here by TV.  Playing favourites and criticising any other contender of the truth. 400 years of souils that have been brought unto Christ stands as testimony that the KJV of the bible is Holy and inspired.


-
So, no answer, then.
Derek

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
Now enough of the contravention of Occam's Razor by looking for anything that could prove the idea of changing the text in the bible as a good idea, which will inevitably change meanings. The incessant need to look for anything that contradicts the most simplistic explanation only creates contention and futile, unproductive  debate.



It simply won't do. It won't do because the KJV changed things that had gone before - therefore they must have had reasons to do so. If later scholars come across enough evidence to change things again - in the interest of truth shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

Couldn't people at the time that KJV was conceived have argued exactly what you have just argued above?


There was nothing before. The KJV of the bible is based on the original translation from Latin and Greek to English. All other translation were used to produce the KJV. 90% Of it is the same as the Geneva Bible.

With all due respects you really need to do a bit of research on the subject.  At the end of the quote below there is a link that will give you an insight on how the bible was translated. It would be worth just reading it to get an idea of its origins.

Quote:
This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. They took into consideration: The Tyndale New Testament, The Coverdale Bible, The Matthews Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, and even the Rheims New Testament. The great revision of the Bishop's Bible had begun. From 1605 to 1606 the scholars engaged in private research. From 1607 to 1609 the work was assembled. In 1610 the work went to press, and in 1611 the first of the huge (16 inch tall) pulpit folios known today as "The 1611 King James Bible" came off the printing press. A typographical discrepancy in Ruth 3:15 rendered a pronoun "He" instead of "She" in that verse in some printings. This caused some of the 1611 First Editions to be known by collectors as "He" Bibles, and others as "She" Bibles. Starting just one year after the huge 1611 pulpit-size King James Bibles were printed and chained to every church pulpit in England; printing then began on the earliest normal-size printings of the King James Bible. These were produced so individuals could have their own personal copy of the Bible.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
Derek

Jim wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Ralph:
Why is the word "Easter" in the KJV?
The word, and term were unknown to the original writers...and had they known it, would never have used it...an error in translation, and one of many.


This person is using a technique that by discrediting the argument will discredit the believer in it,  and visa versa. Stupify the argument rather then put forward a genuine argument that will clearly show that other bibles are better than the KJV.  He is doing what I have been accused of doing here by TV.  Playing favourites and criticising any other contender of the truth. 400 years of souils that have been brought unto Christ stands as testimony that the KJV of the bible is Holy and inspired.


-
So, no answer, then.


“Easter” Is Not A Mistranslation

By David J. Stewart

       Don't fall for the woefully ignorant psuedo-scholars on the internet who continually claim that the inspired and preserved King James Bible has a bunch of mistakes in it... BECAUSE IT DOESN'T! You can completely trust your King James Bible. Here's one common error on the part of the Bible-correcting crowd. Many false scholars ignorantly claim that the word “EASTER” in Acts 12:4 is a mistranslation and should really be the word “PASSOVER.” I'm going to prove to you with the Bible that “Easter” is in fact the correct rendering of the Scriptures.

The word “Passover” in all the modern Bibles is blatant heresy! The 47 scholarly men who translated the King James Bible knew what they were doing. There were 53 men in all, but only 47 did the actual labor of translating. It's ridiculous that so many self-proclaimed know-it-alls these days so arrogantly think they are smarter than the 53 men whom God used to give us the beloved and trustworthy King James Bible in 1611.
The word “Easter” is found one time in the entire authorized King James Bible:

“Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.  And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.  And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.” (Acts 12:1-4)

So here we have a situation in Acts chapter 12. Herod had just beheaded James, it made the Jews happy. Now Herod desires to kill Peter also, but he wants to wait until after “Easter” according to the King James Bible. Notice that the NIV version has the word “Passover” instead of “Easter.” I will prove to you from the King James Bible that “Easter” is in fact, the proper word to use.


“Easter” Is Translated Correctly In The King James Bible

The word “Easter” has been incorrectly translated “Passover” in all modern Bible versions. Only the trustworthy authorized King James Bible renders the proper word, “EASTER.” How do I know this? The Bible evidences it. Notice again in the passage of Acts 12:1-4 that King Herod killed James. When he saw that it pleased the Jews, Herod also had Peter arrested. Notice that Herod took Peter DURING the DAYS OF UNLEAVENED BREAD and was going to bring him forth to the people AFTER Easter.

The Old Testament teaches that the DAY OF PASSOVER started the FEAST OF UNLEAVENED BREAD. Notice in the following Scripture that the Day Of Passover occurred on the 14th day of the first month, but the Feast Of Unleavened Bread began on the 15th day of the month...

“In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.” (Leviticus 23:5,6)
So we learn from this Old Testament Scripture that the day of Passover fell on the 14th day of the first month, and then the “FEAST of UNLEAVENED BREAD” began upon the 15th day of the first month.
The days of unleavened bread came AFTER Passover! Acts 12:3 tells us that Peter was apprehended DURING the “days of unleavened bread.” This means that the day of Passover had ALREADY occurred. “Easter” could not have been Passover, because Passover occurs BEFORE the days of unleavened bread. Passover had come and gone. Herod decided to bring Peter forth AFTER Easter.

This is the proper time sequence:

1. PASSOVER
2. DAYS OF UNLEAVENED BREAD
3. EASTER

So there you have it... the Day Of Passover always kicks off the seven Days Of Unleavened Bread, happening the day before the feast begins. So if Herod arrested James during the Feast Of Unleavened Bread, the Passover was already over. Easter is correct. Of course, Easter is a pagan holiday and the Bible doesn't deny that. The Bible is simply teaching that James was taken by Herod during the days of unleavened bread, and Herod was planning to kill Peter after Easter.


Easter Was Originally A Pagan Holiday

The word “Easter” here does NOT refer to “Easter” as we know it nor does it refer to the “Passover” as it is wrongly translated in other Bible versions. Though many Christians celebrate “Easter” in remembrance of Christ's resurrection, Easter was originally a pagan festival (etymology of your dictionary should confirm this), which is what Acts 12:4 refers to and not the Passover. We will determine this by looking at the passage.

The Webster's New World Dictionary gives the following etymology (origin and development of a word), for the word “Easter” ...

“originally, name of pagan vernal [spring time] festival ALMOST COINCIDENT in date with paschal [Passover] festival of the church”

SOURCE: Eastre, dawn goddess—Austro, dawn

In other words, Easter was originally a pagan festival celebrated in the spring time. When the King James Bible says “EASTER” in Acts 12:4, it is correct; when the other versions say “PASSOVER” in Acts 12:4, they are incorrect. Again, “Easter” in this passage is referring to a pagan festival.


Further Evidence From The Book Of Numbers

Passover only comes once a year on one day, the 14th of Abib ( Numbers 28:16). After the Passover, then comes the seven days of unleavened bread (Numbers 28:16-17), extending from the fifteenth day through the twentieth day...

Numbers 28:16-17, “And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.”

So when Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread (Acts 12:3), Passover had come and gone! This evidences 100% that “Easter” is the correct word that should be rendered in Acts 12:4. The Bible says that Herod was going to bring him forth AFTER Easter (which had not come yet). The angel of the Lord rescued Peter in response to the prayers of the church, who were gathered together praying for Peter after they heard that James had been killed. The Bible says in Acts 12:19 that the keepers of the prison were put to death by Herod for Peter's escape from the prison. In acts 12:23 the Holy Spirit struck Herod and He was eaten by worms and died. Herod is in Hell this moment in torments.

Don't listen to the Bible critics who always attack the King James Bible. The very fact that so many wicked people are attacking the King James Bible evidences that it is God's holy, preserved and inspired Word. Thank God for the precious King James Bible, the holy Words of God. My friend, if you are wrong on the Bible you are wrong on Jesus Christ, for He is called the Word of God (Revelation 19:13). John 1:1-3,14 teaches that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

John 1:1-3 and 14, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

Jesus is the living Word, and the Bible is the written Word. Philippians 2:5, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” To have the mind of Christ we must abide in the Scriptures. Jesus said in John 5:39, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” Amen and amen!

Please don't get caught up into the modern Bible-correcting movement that's always finding fault with God's Word. Those hypocrites never go soul-winning, never take a stand against sin in American culture, never contend for the Christian faith, never make a difference for God. All they do is critic Bible-believing preachers, critic the inspired King James Bible, critic door-to-door soul-winners, but they never do anything to get lost sinners saved.

“Easter” belongs in the Bible in Acts 12:4. “Passover” is a woeful mistranslation. Now you know the truth! The New International Version (NIV) is perverted and it's homosexual translators in trouble with God for butchering the Words of the living God. The NIV 2011 is even worse!!! Jeremiah 23:36, “And the burden of the LORD shall ye mention no more: for every man's word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God.”

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bi...aster_is_not_a_mistranslation.htm
Jim

Rubbish.
That is what is known as 'evidence after the facts'.
Given the motley hotch-potch of divines, actors, politicians, royal flunkies and alchoholics, all representitive of the King's church, excluding Presbyterians, nn-conformists and liberal Puritans. whowere the very biased translation team, the error of 'Ester' is no surprise - it betrays the Anglican origin of the translators...at the time, English and Scots NON-Anglicans used terms such as "Pasche", "Pace" (in Scotland - James knew that, which is probably one of the reasons he used Easter), etc.
It simply betrays the one denomination approach to translation - which, as we have so obviously seen in the mess which masquerades as Scripture known as the NWT - is never healthy.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none Page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum