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 -> Christian chat
Truster

The greatest love story

Genesis:  The tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Revelation : To him that triumpheth  shall  I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of Elohim.

What is sometimes overlooked in the creation narrative and the fall is the wisdom that would necessitate the incarnation and reveal the attributes of the Eternal such as forgiveness and everlasting love.
His justice and wrath were known by the heavenly host and experienced in the swiftness with which a part of them were cast out. The heavenly host knew nothing of His ability to forgive, knew nothing of justification, repentance or salvation

Adam was not forbidden to eat of the tree of life, which was in close proximity to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They were both in the midst (center or middle) of the garden.
The temptation Eve felt would not have been to eat of that tree of life. If it had been and she had eaten, the revelation of everlasting love and forgiveness would never have been revealed.

When Eve ate she became a sinner and Adam, who was the one who had been warned, knew the consequence and yet he took and he did eat. What happened here was the beginning of the greatest love story.
Adam willingly (not my will, but Thy will be done) became a sinner for his woman/bride so that the Last Adam would become sin for His bride (not my will, but Thy will be done).

Adam was created mutable, but the Heirs of grace are under the immutable purpose of the Eternal Almighty for His elect. Which places us in a far greater and steadfast position than Adam.

Amazing grace….
Leonard James

Re: The greatest love story

Truster wrote:
Genesis:  The tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Revelation : To him that triumpheth  shall  I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of Elohim.

What is sometimes overlooked in the creation narrative and the fall is the wisdom that would necessitate the incarnation and reveal the attributes of the Eternal such as forgiveness and everlasting love.
His justice and wrath were known by the heavenly host and experienced in the swiftness with which a part of them were cast out. The heavenly host knew nothing of His ability to forgive, knew nothing of justification, repentance or salvation

Adam was not forbidden to eat of the tree of life, which was in close proximity to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They were both in the midst (center or middle) of the garden.
The temptation Eve felt would not have been to eat of that tree of life. If it had been and she had eaten, the revelation of everlasting love and forgiveness would never have been revealed.

When Eve ate she became a sinner and Adam, who was the one who had been warned, knew the consequence and yet he took and he did eat. What happened here was the beginning of the greatest love story.
Adam willingly (not my will, but Thy will be done) became a sinner for his woman/bride so that the Last Adam would become sin for His bride (not my will, but Thy will be done).

Adam was created mutable, but the Heirs of grace are under the immutable purpose of the Eternal Almighty for His elect. Which places us in a far greater and steadfast position than Adam.

Amazing grace….


Amazing bullshit! How can you possibly swallow all that rot?
Truster

Re: The greatest love story

Leonard James wrote:
Truster wrote:
Genesis:  The tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Revelation : To him that triumpheth  shall  I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of Elohim.

What is sometimes overlooked in the creation narrative and the fall is the wisdom that would necessitate the incarnation and reveal the attributes of the Eternal such as forgiveness and everlasting love.
His justice and wrath were known by the heavenly host and experienced in the swiftness with which a part of them were cast out. The heavenly host knew nothing of His ability to forgive, knew nothing of justification, repentance or salvation

Adam was not forbidden to eat of the tree of life, which was in close proximity to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They were both in the midst (center or middle) of the garden.
The temptation Eve felt would not have been to eat of that tree of life. If it had been and she had eaten, the revelation of everlasting love and forgiveness would never have been revealed.

When Eve ate she became a sinner and Adam, who was the one who had been warned, knew the consequence and yet he took and he did eat. What happened here was the beginning of the greatest love story.
Adam willingly (not my will, but Thy will be done) became a sinner for his woman/bride so that the Last Adam would become sin for His bride (not my will, but Thy will be done).

Adam was created mutable, but the Heirs of grace are under the immutable purpose of the Eternal Almighty for His elect. Which places us in a far greater and steadfast position than Adam.

Amazing grace….


Amazing bullshit! How can you possibly swallow all that rot?


Thank you for the contribution to the post.
Leonard James

Re: The greatest love story

Truster wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Truster wrote:
Genesis:  The tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Revelation : To him that triumpheth  shall  I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of Elohim.

What is sometimes overlooked in the creation narrative and the fall is the wisdom that would necessitate the incarnation and reveal the attributes of the Eternal such as forgiveness and everlasting love.
His justice and wrath were known by the heavenly host and experienced in the swiftness with which a part of them were cast out. The heavenly host knew nothing of His ability to forgive, knew nothing of justification, repentance or salvation

Adam was not forbidden to eat of the tree of life, which was in close proximity to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They were both in the midst (center or middle) of the garden.
The temptation Eve felt would not have been to eat of that tree of life. If it had been and she had eaten, the revelation of everlasting love and forgiveness would never have been revealed.

When Eve ate she became a sinner and Adam, who was the one who had been warned, knew the consequence and yet he took and he did eat. What happened here was the beginning of the greatest love story.
Adam willingly (not my will, but Thy will be done) became a sinner for his woman/bride so that the Last Adam would become sin for His bride (not my will, but Thy will be done).

Adam was created mutable, but the Heirs of grace are under the immutable purpose of the Eternal Almighty for His elect. Which places us in a far greater and steadfast position than Adam.

Amazing grace….


Amazing bullshit! How can you possibly swallow all that rot?


Thank you for the contribution to the post.


You have added quite enough fictitious stuff to the Genesis story without any help from me. Its original authors would be green with envy at the breadth of your imagination.
Truster

Re: The greatest love story

Leonard James wrote:
Truster wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Truster wrote:
Genesis:  The tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Revelation : To him that triumpheth  shall  I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of Elohim.

What is sometimes overlooked in the creation narrative and the fall is the wisdom that would necessitate the incarnation and reveal the attributes of the Eternal such as forgiveness and everlasting love.
His justice and wrath were known by the heavenly host and experienced in the swiftness with which a part of them were cast out. The heavenly host knew nothing of His ability to forgive, knew nothing of justification, repentance or salvation

Adam was not forbidden to eat of the tree of life, which was in close proximity to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They were both in the midst (center or middle) of the garden.
The temptation Eve felt would not have been to eat of that tree of life. If it had been and she had eaten, the revelation of everlasting love and forgiveness would never have been revealed.

When Eve ate she became a sinner and Adam, who was the one who had been warned, knew the consequence and yet he took and he did eat. What happened here was the beginning of the greatest love story.
Adam willingly (not my will, but Thy will be done) became a sinner for his woman/bride so that the Last Adam would become sin for His bride (not my will, but Thy will be done).

Adam was created mutable, but the Heirs of grace are under the immutable purpose of the Eternal Almighty for His elect. Which places us in a far greater and steadfast position than Adam.

Amazing grace….


Amazing bullshit! How can you possibly swallow all that rot?


Thank you for the contribution to the post.


You have added quite enough fictitious stuff to the Genesis story without any help from me. Its original authors would be green with envy at the breadth of your imagination.


Scripture, like water, has a surface tension. Only the heirs of grace can penetrate the surface and enjoy the depths.
Jim

Some of the theological jargon here reminds me why I tried so hard to fall asleep in lectures!
We Christians are so precious, sometimes...surrounding ourselves in a comfort blanket of theology speak and expecting those who do not share our understanding of the terms to magically do so by some sort of verbal osmosis!
Truster

Jim wrote:
Some of the theological jargon here reminds me why I tried so hard to fall asleep in lectures!
We Christians are so precious, sometimes...surrounding ourselves in a comfort blanket of theology speak and expecting those who do not share our understanding of the terms to magically do so by some sort of verbal osmosis!


''If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God'';
Jim

Yep.
And Jesus spoke to ordinary people in a language they could understand, and in ways which attracted them, rather than repelled them.
Just as the New Testament was written in cursive Koine Greek rather than the more formal classic Greek.
It was meant to be easily read to, and listened by, common, relatively uneducated people.
Thank God - literally - for modern translations and, yes, paraphrases, which try to do the same.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Yep.
And Jesus spoke to ordinary people in a language they could understand, and in ways which attracted them, rather than repelled them.
Just as the New Testament was written in cursive Koine Greek rather than the more formal classic Greek.
It was meant to be easily read to, and listened by, common, relatively uneducated people.
Thank God - literally - for modern translations and, yes, paraphrases, which try to do the same.


Do you really mean this? Everything you have said here is 100% true and I subscribe to every word so how have you read the trinity and God incarnate into its simplistic text, yet I see no evidence of it anywhere.
Jim

Try reading a modern translation, interlinear or paraphrase!
Jim

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-proof-texts.htm
Truster

Jim wrote:
Yep.
And Jesus spoke to ordinary people in a language they could understand, and in ways which attracted them, rather than repelled them.
Just as the New Testament was written in cursive Koine Greek rather than the more formal classic Greek.
It was meant to be easily read to, and listened by, common, relatively uneducated people.
Thank God - literally - for modern translations and, yes, paraphrases, which try to do the same.


Messiah spoke mostly in parables so that they wouldn't understand. You'll read of that in Isaiah, the gospels and the epistles.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Try reading a modern translation, interlinear or paraphrase!


I read the authorized translation of the Old and New Testiment. The King James Version. Anything else is a translation of a translation and therefore loses its efficacy.
Derek

Jim wrote:
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-proof-texts.htm


Every. Single one of those verses are interoperable. There is nowhere in scripture where God announces that He, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are part of the trinity. The Godhead, yes, but not the trinity.

The trouble with the internet is that there is always arguments for and against situations like this. Why, because there is no definitive answer, like gays being born not raised.


Seven Scriptures That Debunk the Trinity as a Single Being

The following seven scriptures show the fallacy of claiming that the Father and the Son are one being as the Trinity teaching asserts. How can one reconcile belief in the Trinity with these simple questions?

1. Hebrews 1:5
tells us that Jesus was begotten by His Father. Did He beget Himself?

2. In Matthew 22:44
, the Father said Jesus would sit at His right hand until His enemies were made His footstool. Was Jesus to sit at His own right hand?

3. In Matthew 24:36
, when Jesus told His disciples that no one knows the day or hour of His return but the Father only, did He really know but made up an excuse to not tell them?

4. In John 14:28
, Jesus said His Father was greater than He was. Does this mean He was greater than Himself?

5. In John 17:1
, Jesus prayed to His Father. Was He praying to Himself?

6. In Matthew 27:46
, Jesus cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Had He forsaken Himself?

7. In John 20:17
, Jesus said He would ascend to the Father after His resurrection. Did He ascend to Himself?

These and many other biblical passages demonstrate to a rational Bible reader that the Trinity teaching is not only unbiblical, but also utterly illogicau
Jim

By 'eck, Ralph;
I never had you down as a KJV only-er!
I admit that, given the very limited (and corrupted (literary term)) mss available, the 1611 KJV was a reasonable translation, albeit skewed to support Janes VI's ideas on 'divine right of Kings'.
However, the 1622 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland refused it on two grounds:
1, the obvious biase engendered by James VI's tampering,
and
11, the archaic language! Yeseven then, the CofS was concerned that the KJV was a departure from translating Scripture into modern language (for thwtime)!
The Kirk retained the Geneva Bible until an Act of Parliament forced it to accept the KJV in 1689!
The translation team working on the KJV wwere far from a homogenous bunch of academics...in fact, they included an alchoholic  and an illiterate actor!

Now, with modern linguistic techniques, plus access to mss denied the original KJV translators, we can be certain that more modern versions of Scripture are both more reliable and, more to the point, more accurate to the original mss.
Derek

Jim wrote:
By 'eck, Ralph;
I never had you down as a KJV only-er!
I admit that, given the very limited (and corrupted (literary term)) mss available, the 1611 KJV was a reasonable translation, albeit skewed to support Janes VI's ideas on 'divine right of Kings'.
However, the 1622 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland refused it on two grounds:
1, the obvious biase engendered by James VI's tampering,
and
11, the archaic language! Yeseven then, the CofS was concerned that the KJV was a departure from translating Scripture into modern language (for thwtime)!
The Kirk retained the Geneva Bible until an Act of Parliament forced it to accept the KJV in 1689!

The translation team working on the KJV wwere far from a homogenous bunch of academics...in fact, they included an alchoholic  and an illiterate actor!

Now, with modern linguistic techniques, plus access to mss denied the original KJV translators, we can be certain that more modern versions of Scripture are both more reliable and, more to the point, more accurate to the original mss.


The King James Version is probably the most accurate of all translations. An exert from a recent article commemorating the 400th year since its translation.

The Best Version

Even though the King James Version has its weaknesses, it is an excellent translation and by far the best version available today. We must not be taken in by the modern versions and their claims. Our 400 year old Bible is to be preferred above all others because it is better than them all.

1) It was translated by men who are unsurpassed in their knowledge of Biblical studies.

2) The translators were pious men of God who believed in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.

3) It is the mature fruit of generations of English translations as well as the careful work of its translators.

4) The King James Version is based upon the Received Text rather than the critical Greek text of modern versions.

5) It is a word-for-word translation which faithfully and accurately reflects the originals.

6) The language is one of reverence and respect which gives honor to the majesty of its Author.

7) Of all the English versions of today, it alone is the Bible of the Reformation.

8) Our spiritual forefathers thought so highly of it that they were willing to suffer and even die for it.

9) It is the version which has been recognized for generations and generations as the Bible God has given to His English-speaking Church.

Indeed, we find fountains of living water in the King James Version of the Bible. It is the living Word of the living God. Do not despise it and reject it for the unreliable modern versions as so many do today. Do not let anyone take this great Bible away from you. This version is the Bible we ought to use in our homes and churches. It ought to be the authority for both our faith and practice. We ought to stand up for and defend this Bible which has been given to us by the good providence of God

The Translators Of The KJV

Their Organization


In the providence of God, although all others seemed little concerned about a new translation, the suggestion of Dr. Reynolds was fixed in the mind of the king. In due season that suggestion ripened into personal enthusiasm on the part of the king and also on the part of those whom he appointed to take charge of this great undertaking. Conformists and Puritans alike with great zeal and dedication were ready to begin their tasks. By June 30, 1604 (six months after the Hampton Court Conference), fifty four men had been approved as translators of the new version (Evidently only forty seven men actually took up the labors.) and a plan of procedure had been set down. Bishop Bancroft, entrusted with the general management of the work, was busy making all the necessary preparations.

The translators were formed into six companies: two meeting at Westminster, two at Cambridge, and two at Oxford. Genesis through II Kings was translated by the first Westminster company, I Chron. through Ecclesiastes by the first Cambridge company, and Isaiah through Malachi by the first Oxford company. The second Oxford company translated the four Gospel accounts, Acts, and Revelation. The Second Westminster company did Romans through Jude. The Apocrypha was done by the second Cambridge company.

The Apocrypha, however, was not considered a part of the inspired Scriptures. It was translated and bound with the Bible, but the King James Version translators did not count it as God's Word. In that they differed from the Roman Church. The fact that the Apocryphal books were separated out of the Old Testament and put after it indicates that they did not consider it equal with Holy Scripture. In later editions it was dropped altogether.

Their Learning

In these six companies of translators were gathered together the most learned men of the age. Today it is charged that the King James Version is obsolete, for we have learned so much more and have men who are much greater scholars than those of the 17th century and who, therefore, can do a much better job of translating the Bible. Indeed, we have gathered much general knowledge in the past three hundred and eighty years. It is NOT true, however, that the King James Version translators were inferior scholars. They were men of great learning.

Who today is skilled in fifteen languages as was Launcelot Andrews, the head of the Westminster company which translated Genesis through II Kings? It is said of him that he might almost have served as an interpreter general at the confusion of tongues, he was so proficient in the languages. Others spoke of him as that great gulf of learning. He was so knowledgeable that the world wanted learning to know how learned this man was.

William Bedwell of the same company was well known as the greatest Arabic scholar of the day. To him belongs the honor of being the first who promoted and revived the study of the Arabic language and literature in Europe. He authored the Lexicon Heptaglotten, which included Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic. He also worked on a Persian dictionary, an Arabic Lexicon, and an Arabic translation of the Epistles of John.

Dr. Smith, the author of The Translators To The Readers and one of the final editors, is said to have had Hebrew at his fingers' ends. He was so conversant in Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic that they were as familiar to him as English. His knowledge of the Greek and Latin fathers was exceptional. He was so versed in literature that he was characterized as a very walking library.

John Harmar of the Oxford company, was a noted scholar in Greek and Latin. He translated Calvin's sermons on the Ten commandments, several of Beza's sermons, and some of the Homilies of Chrysostom.

John Boys of the Cambridge group was one of the most distinguished scholars of all the translators. His father taught him Hebrew when he was five years old and he was admitted to St. John's College, Cambridge when he was fourteen. He was a most exact Greek grammarian who had read no less than sixty grammars.

Dr. John Reynolds, the Puritan who first suggested a new translation, had a reputation as a Hebrew and Greek scholar. He had read and studied all the Greek and Latin fathers, as well as the ancient records of the Church. Those who knew him held him to be the most learned man in England. It is said of him, that He alone was a well-furnished library, full of all faculties, all studies, and all learning. His memory and reading were near to a miracle. He worked on the translation of the Prophets until his death in 1607.

Henry Savile of the New Testament Oxford company was one of the most profound, exact, and critical scholars of his age. He became famous for his Greek at an early age. He is chiefly known as the first one to edit the complete works of John Chrysostom. Some have styled him, that magazine of learning, whose memory shall be honorable among the learned and the righteous forever.

No, these men were not ignorant. They were not even average. They were exceptional in their various areas of knowledge. The first half of the seventeenth century, when the translation was made, was the Golden Age of Biblical and oriental learning in England. Never before, nor since, have these studies been pursued by English scholars with such zeal and success. It is very doubtful that all the colleges of Great Britain and America could even bring together the same number of men who are equally qualified by learning and piety as the King James Version translators.

The Spiritual Charactor Of The Translators

But scholarship is not everything. A translation of the Bible is always affected by the spiritual character and faith of the translators. An unbeliever does not translate the Bible as does a believer. Martin Luther wrote, Translating is not an art that everyone can practice, as the mad saints think; it requires a right pious, faithful, diligent, God-fearing, experienced heart. Therefore, I hold that no false Christian, or sectarian can be a faithful translator. No false Christian, no sectarian-that is, no unbeliever can be a good translator of the Bible. This is the problem with many modern versions. Some of the translators were not qualified spiritually for the work, even though they might have been intellectually.
Protestant Men

What about these translators? Did they have this heart which Luther describes? The answer is a most emphatic, yes. These men where, indeed, pious men of God, who were committed to the Truth. Gustavus Paine, in his book The men Behind the King James Version, tells us that there were among the translators no Roman Catholics, no Jews and no women. That little statement says much. They were all Protestants who belonged to the Anglican Church. Some were High Churchmen. Some were Puritans. Others were somewhere in between the two. But they were all members of a church that was Protestant, a church of the Reformation. The church was not as Reformed as Geneva, not even as Reformed as it had been in the days of Edward VI, but it was nevertheless a church that had adopted many of the Truths of the Reformation. In a few years (1647), under the leadership of the Puritans, this church would produce the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. These Creeds are standards of the Reformed Faith.

Although some of the translators were more or less Arminian, many of them were Calvinists. One authority tells us that Calvinistic doctrine was the prevailing doctrine of the day. Lawrence Chaderton was one of the strong Calvinists among the translators. At his conversion from the Roman Church to Calvinism his father had written him, Son Lawrence, if you will renounce the new sect which you have joined, you may expect all the happiness which the care of an indulgent father can assure you; otherwise, I enclose a shilling to buy a wallet. Go and beg. This was no idle threat. His father was a very wealthy man. Without his aid life would be very difficult for the young Chaderton. But he refused to give up his Calvinism and became an outspoken anti-Arminian preacher. Thomas Holland, a thorough Calvinist, is said to have opposed Rome with more force than any other. Whenever he went on a journey his farewell to his fellows at the College was this: I commend you to the love of God, and to the hatred of popery and superstition.

Godly Men


Miles Smith in the translators' preface to the readers describes the spiritual character of these men. He asked, And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting; they prayed to the Lord the Father of our Lord, to the effect that St. Augustine did; "O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight, let me not be deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them." They were godly men who did not trust in their own strength, but sought guidance and help from God. They knew that if their work was to be a success, it had to be the work of God. They believed that, even after the translation was completed, it would be meaningless to the people of England without the enlightening power of God's grace. Thus they remind the reader, It remaineth that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of his grace, which is able to build further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand his word, enlarging our hearts, yea correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea that we may love it to the end.

Believing Men


Unlike many who translate the Bible today, they believed that they were dealing with the inspired Word of God. Concerning the Scriptures they could exclaim through Miles Smith in the Preface, And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not earth; the author being God, not man: the enditer (prompter), the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Pen-men, such as were sanctified from the womb, and endowed with a principal portion of God's Spirit; the matter, verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form, God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of Truth, the word of salvation; the effect, light of understanding, stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the Holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof, fellowship with the Saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal undefiled, that never shall fade away; Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night.

Indeed, these men considered the Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God. To them, the Bible was a very special book and they handled it accordingly. Yet, they knew too that this special book could be properly translated and profitably read and studied only when God in His sovereign grace worked in the hearts of its translators and readers.

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_9.html#translat
Truster

Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
By 'eck, Ralph;
I never had you down as a KJV only-er!
I admit that, given the very limited (and corrupted (literary term)) mss available, the 1611 KJV was a reasonable translation, albeit skewed to support Janes VI's ideas on 'divine right of Kings'.
However, the 1622 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland refused it on two grounds:
1, the obvious biase engendered by James VI's tampering,
and
11, the archaic language! Yeseven then, the CofS was concerned that the KJV was a departure from translating Scripture into modern language (for thwtime)!
The Kirk retained the Geneva Bible until an Act of Parliament forced it to accept the KJV in 1689!

The translation team working on the KJV wwere far from a homogenous bunch of academics...in fact, they included an alchoholic  and an illiterate actor!

Now, with modern linguistic techniques, plus access to mss denied the original KJV translators, we can be certain that more modern versions of Scripture are both more reliable and, more to the point, more accurate to the original mss.


The King James Version is probably the most accurate of all translations. An exert from a recent article commemorating the 400th year since its translation.

The Best Version

Even though the King James Version has its weaknesses, it is an excellent translation and by far the best version available today. We must not be taken in by the modern versions and their claims. Our 400 year old Bible is to be preferred above all others because it is better than them all.

1) It was translated by men who are unsurpassed in their knowledge of Biblical studies.

2) The translators were pious men of God who believed in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.

3) It is the mature fruit of generations of English translations as well as the careful work of its translators.

4) The King James Version is based upon the Received Text rather than the critical Greek text of modern versions.

5) It is a word-for-word translation which faithfully and accurately reflects the originals.

6) The language is one of reverence and respect which gives honor to the majesty of its Author.

7) Of all the English versions of today, it alone is the Bible of the Reformation.

8) Our spiritual forefathers thought so highly of it that they were willing to suffer and even die for it.

9) It is the version which has been recognized for generations and generations as the Bible God has given to His English-speaking Church.

Indeed, we find fountains of living water in the King James Version of the Bible. It is the living Word of the living God. Do not despise it and reject it for the unreliable modern versions as so many do today. Do not let anyone take this great Bible away from you. This version is the Bible we ought to use in our homes and churches. It ought to be the authority for both our faith and practice. We ought to stand up for and defend this Bible which has been given to us by the good providence of God

The Translators Of The KJV

Their Organization


In the providence of God, although all others seemed little concerned about a new translation, the suggestion of Dr. Reynolds was fixed in the mind of the king. In due season that suggestion ripened into personal enthusiasm on the part of the king and also on the part of those whom he appointed to take charge of this great undertaking. Conformists and Puritans alike with great zeal and dedication were ready to begin their tasks. By June 30, 1604 (six months after the Hampton Court Conference), fifty four men had been approved as translators of the new version (Evidently only forty seven men actually took up the labors.) and a plan of procedure had been set down. Bishop Bancroft, entrusted with the general management of the work, was busy making all the necessary preparations.

The translators were formed into six companies: two meeting at Westminster, two at Cambridge, and two at Oxford. Genesis through II Kings was translated by the first Westminster company, I Chron. through Ecclesiastes by the first Cambridge company, and Isaiah through Malachi by the first Oxford company. The second Oxford company translated the four Gospel accounts, Acts, and Revelation. The Second Westminster company did Romans through Jude. The Apocrypha was done by the second Cambridge company.

The Apocrypha, however, was not considered a part of the inspired Scriptures. It was translated and bound with the Bible, but the King James Version translators did not count it as God's Word. In that they differed from the Roman Church. The fact that the Apocryphal books were separated out of the Old Testament and put after it indicates that they did not consider it equal with Holy Scripture. In later editions it was dropped altogether.

Their Learning

In these six companies of translators were gathered together the most learned men of the age. Today it is charged that the King James Version is obsolete, for we have learned so much more and have men who are much greater scholars than those of the 17th century and who, therefore, can do a much better job of translating the Bible. Indeed, we have gathered much general knowledge in the past three hundred and eighty years. It is NOT true, however, that the King James Version translators were inferior scholars. They were men of great learning.

Who today is skilled in fifteen languages as was Launcelot Andrews, the head of the Westminster company which translated Genesis through II Kings? It is said of him that he might almost have served as an interpreter general at the confusion of tongues, he was so proficient in the languages. Others spoke of him as that great gulf of learning. He was so knowledgeable that the world wanted learning to know how learned this man was.

William Bedwell of the same company was well known as the greatest Arabic scholar of the day. To him belongs the honor of being the first who promoted and revived the study of the Arabic language and literature in Europe. He authored the Lexicon Heptaglotten, which included Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic. He also worked on a Persian dictionary, an Arabic Lexicon, and an Arabic translation of the Epistles of John.

Dr. Smith, the author of The Translators To The Readers and one of the final editors, is said to have had Hebrew at his fingers' ends. He was so conversant in Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic that they were as familiar to him as English. His knowledge of the Greek and Latin fathers was exceptional. He was so versed in literature that he was characterized as a very walking library.

John Harmar of the Oxford company, was a noted scholar in Greek and Latin. He translated Calvin's sermons on the Ten commandments, several of Beza's sermons, and some of the Homilies of Chrysostom.

John Boys of the Cambridge group was one of the most distinguished scholars of all the translators. His father taught him Hebrew when he was five years old and he was admitted to St. John's College, Cambridge when he was fourteen. He was a most exact Greek grammarian who had read no less than sixty grammars.

Dr. John Reynolds, the Puritan who first suggested a new translation, had a reputation as a Hebrew and Greek scholar. He had read and studied all the Greek and Latin fathers, as well as the ancient records of the Church. Those who knew him held him to be the most learned man in England. It is said of him, that He alone was a well-furnished library, full of all faculties, all studies, and all learning. His memory and reading were near to a miracle. He worked on the translation of the Prophets until his death in 1607.

Henry Savile of the New Testament Oxford company was one of the most profound, exact, and critical scholars of his age. He became famous for his Greek at an early age. He is chiefly known as the first one to edit the complete works of John Chrysostom. Some have styled him, that magazine of learning, whose memory shall be honorable among the learned and the righteous forever.

No, these men were not ignorant. They were not even average. They were exceptional in their various areas of knowledge. The first half of the seventeenth century, when the translation was made, was the Golden Age of Biblical and oriental learning in England. Never before, nor since, have these studies been pursued by English scholars with such zeal and success. It is very doubtful that all the colleges of Great Britain and America could even bring together the same number of men who are equally qualified by learning and piety as the King James Version translators.

The Spiritual Charactor Of The Translators

But scholarship is not everything. A translation of the Bible is always affected by the spiritual character and faith of the translators. An unbeliever does not translate the Bible as does a believer. Martin Luther wrote, Translating is not an art that everyone can practice, as the mad saints think; it requires a right pious, faithful, diligent, God-fearing, experienced heart. Therefore, I hold that no false Christian, or sectarian can be a faithful translator. No false Christian, no sectarian-that is, no unbeliever can be a good translator of the Bible. This is the problem with many modern versions. Some of the translators were not qualified spiritually for the work, even though they might have been intellectually.
Protestant Men

What about these translators? Did they have this heart which Luther describes? The answer is a most emphatic, yes. These men where, indeed, pious men of God, who were committed to the Truth. Gustavus Paine, in his book The men Behind the King James Version, tells us that there were among the translators no Roman Catholics, no Jews and no women. That little statement says much. They were all Protestants who belonged to the Anglican Church. Some were High Churchmen. Some were Puritans. Others were somewhere in between the two. But they were all members of a church that was Protestant, a church of the Reformation. The church was not as Reformed as Geneva, not even as Reformed as it had been in the days of Edward VI, but it was nevertheless a church that had adopted many of the Truths of the Reformation. In a few years (1647), under the leadership of the Puritans, this church would produce the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. These Creeds are standards of the Reformed Faith.

Although some of the translators were more or less Arminian, many of them were Calvinists. One authority tells us that Calvinistic doctrine was the prevailing doctrine of the day. Lawrence Chaderton was one of the strong Calvinists among the translators. At his conversion from the Roman Church to Calvinism his father had written him, Son Lawrence, if you will renounce the new sect which you have joined, you may expect all the happiness which the care of an indulgent father can assure you; otherwise, I enclose a shilling to buy a wallet. Go and beg. This was no idle threat. His father was a very wealthy man. Without his aid life would be very difficult for the young Chaderton. But he refused to give up his Calvinism and became an outspoken anti-Arminian preacher. Thomas Holland, a thorough Calvinist, is said to have opposed Rome with more force than any other. Whenever he went on a journey his farewell to his fellows at the College was this: I commend you to the love of God, and to the hatred of popery and superstition.

Godly Men


Miles Smith in the translators' preface to the readers describes the spiritual character of these men. He asked, And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting; they prayed to the Lord the Father of our Lord, to the effect that St. Augustine did; "O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight, let me not be deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them." They were godly men who did not trust in their own strength, but sought guidance and help from God. They knew that if their work was to be a success, it had to be the work of God. They believed that, even after the translation was completed, it would be meaningless to the people of England without the enlightening power of God's grace. Thus they remind the reader, It remaineth that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of his grace, which is able to build further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand his word, enlarging our hearts, yea correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea that we may love it to the end.

Believing Men


Unlike many who translate the Bible today, they believed that they were dealing with the inspired Word of God. Concerning the Scriptures they could exclaim through Miles Smith in the Preface, And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not earth; the author being God, not man: the enditer (prompter), the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Pen-men, such as were sanctified from the womb, and endowed with a principal portion of God's Spirit; the matter, verity, piety, purity, uprightness; the form, God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of Truth, the word of salvation; the effect, light of understanding, stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the Holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof, fellowship with the Saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal undefiled, that never shall fade away; Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night.

Indeed, these men considered the Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God. To them, the Bible was a very special book and they handled it accordingly. Yet, they knew too that this special book could be properly translated and profitably read and studied only when God in His sovereign grace worked in the hearts of its translators and readers.

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_9.html#translat


I would strongly suggest that you do a little background checking into these men, before you attribute piety to them all.
Jim

Ralph;
This is first year Uni stuff.
The translators of the KJV were, for their time, and given the limited resources at their disposal, gifted.
More than 90% of their work was simply plagiarised from the existing Geneva Bible...word for word.
Don't take my word for it: both versions are available on BibbleGateway.
If the 1611 version of the KJV was so great, why has it been revised and rewritten at least eleven times since its' publishing?

Here's a (rather simplistic) site showing why the KJV is by no means accurate by modern standards.
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm



Besides, what the translators were working with was really only the Latin Vulgate translated imperfectly by (St) Jerome, and the Geneva Bible translators notes.
The important mss with better texts of both Old and New Testaments were denied them, being in the Vatican, St Katherine's Monastery in Sinai, Moscow. or in Ottoman hands.

As I said, they did a great job given the limitations and political chicanery imposed on them. I'm not knocking this.
However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, access to Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Bezae, Codex Vaticanus and other mss, denied the original translators, modern versions are bound to be more accurate literally and linguistically, given the shifts in English usage.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Ralph;
This is first year Uni stuff.
The translators of the KJV were, for their time, and given the limited resources at their disposal, gifted.
More than 90% of their work was simply plagiarised from the existing Geneva Bible...word for word.
Don't take my word for it: both versions are available on BibbleGateway.
If the 1611 version of the KJV was so great, why has it been revised and rewritten at least eleven times since its' publishing?

Here's a (rather simplistic) site showing why the KJV is by no means accurate by modern standards.
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm



Besides, what the translators were working with was really only the Latin Vulgate translated imperfectly by (St) Jerome, and the Geneva Bible translators notes.
The important mss with better texts of both Old and New Testaments were denied them, being in the Vatican, St Katherine's Monastery in Sinai, Moscow. or in Ottoman hands.

As I said, they did a great job given the limitations and political chicanery imposed on them. I'm not knocking this.
However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, access to Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Bezae, Codex Vaticanus and other mss, denied the original translators, modern versions are bound to be more accurate literally and linguistically, given the shifts in English usage.


Why would the Dead Sea Scrolls, access to Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Bezae, Codex Vaticanus and other mss effect the accurate translation of the bible, They are separate and distinct writings, If translated correctly they should need no corroboration from any other works and the translation will be the same today as they were 400 years ago. It has recorded what it has recorded, it will never change in content. It is, without doubt, the best translation available today. Many will disagree because Satan wants derision in the ranks of the saints. When looked upon with impartiality and a knowledge of the opposition in all things the KJV is the most accurate word for word translation of the Word of God that can be used in English speaking countries of the world. It is all but authorized by God himself. Beware to those who ridicule it or try and diminish its veracity. God has set it up as a light to fill the world. Light and knowledge are synonymous so let that light so shine to fill the hearts of men to show them the magnificence of God Almighty.

I can add my personal testimony to that. I have read its pages many times and have felt of His spirit as I do so. It is manifestly clear to me that it is the literal words of God every time I pick it up and read it. I to believe that the translation was God inspired for those who use the English language in their communications. A man can get closer to God by reading from its pages then he can from any other book in publication. It is a best seller, which must account for something. Anyone who reads from any other scriptures is denying the power and will of God. That may sound harsh, but one book is enough to convey the mind and will of God into our understanding. Anything else is a means by which Satan will try and thwart the plan of salvation, and nothing short.

An Accurate Translation

It must be noted further that the King James Version translators were very concerned to have an accurate translation of the originals. They proclaim on the title page, Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament and the New: newly translated out of the original tongues... That proclamation is true. For these men have given us, for the most part, a word-for-word translation of the originals. They did not follow the principle of dynamic equivalence as do most translators today. Most modern versions are not word-for-word translations. One English word is not translated for one Greek or Hebrew word. Rather the ideas expressed in the originals are put into English. Dynamic equivalence is the method of translation whereby one translates the ideas but not necessarily the words. The King James Version translators did not use such a method. They translated word for word. Thus they have produced a very accurate and faithful translation as far as the original words are concerned.

The truth of the matter, however, is quite different. The King James Version, although it is almost 400 years old, is still the best translation available today. It was translated by men who were both intellectually and spiritually qualified for the work. The great version which they produced is faithful to the originals, accurate, incomparable in its style, and easily understood by all those who are serious about reading and studying God's Word.

The King James Version of the Bible is the version which we ought to use both in our churches and homes. It is my prayer that God will use this history of the King James Version to give the reader a better appreciation for this Bible.

Rev. Steven Houck

A Majestic Translation

In the third place we must note the fact that the translators gave the King James Version a majestic quality that raises it high above all other translations. They recognized God to be GOD-a God of glory and majesty. Therefore, they were careful to translate His Word in such a way that it would be filled with His majesty. That is another reason why the English of the King James Version is not the English of the 17th century. The translators deliberately chose words and phases that were no longer used in general conversation even in their day in order that they might set this book apart from all others. All you have to do is compare the language of the dedication to King James in the front of your Bible with the Bible itself and you will see the difference immediately.

Many tell us that the King James Version is no longer useful because its language has become obsolete, but what they do not realize is that its language is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. Oh, it was such that the people could understand it, but it was, nevertheless, a particular language deliberately chosen to make the King James Version a version that reflects the reverence and respect which is due unto its Divine Author. In that respect, they succeeded too, for there is no version that even comes close to the beauty and majesty of the King James Version.
Jim

What are other posters' views on this?
Jim

The Dead Sea Scrolls are important, Ralph, because they preserve in their texts the earliest mss's we have of some of the O. T. books.
Later mss were, of necessity, copied and recopied, allowing error to creep in.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have enabled minor corrections to be made to some of the O. T books as a result. Though this does not alter the substance of the book, it does ensure that modern translations are more accurate than earlier ones.

As I posted above, given the limitations of mss material available to the translators of the KJV, they did a magnificent job.
However modern scholarship must recognise those limititations ( hence the slightly, but not much, better NKJV).
The language in the KJV is indeed majestic...but how many people walking around nowadays communicate in Jacobean English?
Paul did not write in Jacobean English;
We do not need to read what he wrote in Jacobean English.

I DO, however, use the KJV if I'm dealing with older people who have a tenuous connection with church, especially in a funeral situation, when Psalm 23 or Romans 8 can trigger memories.
However I would normally use NRSV or NIV with adults.
NLT or CEV with teenagers, and GNB with children...I try to target the version to suit the hearers.
I'm not averse to using a paraphrase either, if the situation demands it.

Whatever version I need to use to convey the Gospel message in a way those who hear will understand it.
That's why the KJV  is redundant in most churches nowadays.
Derek

Jim wrote:
The Dead Sea Scrolls are important, Ralph, because they preserve in their texts the earliest mss's we have of some of the O. T. books.
Later mss were, of necessity, copied and recopied, allowing error to creep in.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have enabled minor corrections to be made to some of the O. T books as a result. Though this does not alter the substance of the book, it does ensure that modern translations are more accurate than earlier ones.

As I posted above, given the limitations of mss material available to the translators of the KJV, they did a magnificent job.
However modern scholarship must recognise those limititations ( hence the slightly, but not much, better NKJV).
The language in the KJV is indeed majestic...but how many people walking around nowadays communicate in Jacobean English?
Paul did not write in Jacobean English;
We do not need to read what he wrote in Jacobean English.

I DO, however, use the KJV if I'm dealing with older people who have a tenuous connection with church, especially in a funeral situation, when Psalm 23 or Romans 8 can trigger memories.
However I would normally use NRSV or NIV with adults.
NLT or CEV with teenagers, and GNB with children...I try to target the version to suit the hearers.
I'm not averse to using a paraphrase either, if the situation demands it.

Whatever version I need to use to convey the Gospel message in a way those who hear will understand it.
That's why the KJV  is redundant in most churches nowadays.


To be perfectly honest with you, it feels like man's obsessive need to interfere is now messing with the only needed word of God and denies his omniscience because they think they are more knowledgeable then He is, by correcting his inspired translation. I cannot agree or accept that God did not know about the dead sea scrolls when he inspired the KJV of the bible. But like most of my belief, they are mine. I do not expect anyone to follow my lead. I am very satisfied with the KJV and the feelings it induces in my blossom. I genuinely believe in the words that I have posted here. If you don't, then that I fine. We will all stand alone and as individuals on the day of judgement. You will not be able to judge me nor I you. Not that our choice of scripture will need judging.

I read somewhere, over the past couple of days, that the KJV remains the best seller. To pander to man's need for an easier reading text is quite wrong if God has already provided a suitable translation.
Jim

Why  do you think the KJV was any more inspired than the Geneva Bible?
Or the Wycliffe? Tyndale?
Covedale?

Did God only start inspiring the Scriptures when James VI interfered with them?
Quizzimodo

Quote:
I read somewhere, over the past couple of days, that the KJV remains the best seller. To pander to man's need for an easier reading text is quite wrong if God has already provided a suitable translation.


So is the Da Vinci Code

Your point?
Derek

Jim wrote:
Why  do you think the KJV was any more inspired than the Geneva Bible?
Or the Wycliffe? Tyndale?
Covedale?

Did God only start inspiring the Scriptures when James VI interfered with them?


I thought you might have known that. I was a Mormon for 25 years. They only use the KJV. It is what you get used to, plus, my scriptures are unique to me. I have marked them with things that I feel important and have cross referenced them. I would hate to have to do that all over again, although they are getting old now. For me, it is also how the translation took place, and by whom, and the inspiration that they said that they received whilst doing it.
Derek

Quizzimodo wrote:
Quote:
I read somewhere, over the past couple of days, that the KJV remains the best seller. To pander to man's need for an easier reading text is quite wrong if God has already provided a suitable translation.


So is the Da Vinci Code

Your point?


Read the thread instead of just trying to derail it.
Quizzimodo

Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why  do you think the KJV was any more inspired than the Geneva Bible?
Or the Wycliffe? Tyndale?
Covedale?

Did God only start inspiring the Scriptures when James VI interfered with them?


I thought you might have known that. I was a Mormon for 25 years. They only use the KJV. It is what you get used to, plus, my scriptures are unique to me. I have marked them with things that I feel important and have cross referenced them. I would hate to have to do that all over again, although they are getting old now. For me, it is also how the translation took place, and by whom, and the inspiration that they said that they received whilst doing it.


The process that led to the translation of the KJV was largely political
Lexilogio

Quizzimodo wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Jim wrote:
Why  do you think the KJV was any more inspired than the Geneva Bible?
Or the Wycliffe? Tyndale?
Covedale?

Did God only start inspiring the Scriptures when James VI interfered with them?


I thought you might have known that. I was a Mormon for 25 years. They only use the KJV. It is what you get used to, plus, my scriptures are unique to me. I have marked them with things that I feel important and have cross referenced them. I would hate to have to do that all over again, although they are getting old now. For me, it is also how the translation took place, and by whom, and the inspiration that they said that they received whilst doing it.


The process that led to the translation of the KJV was largely political


True. But it does have more poetical rhyme than other versions.

I'm rather fond of the KJV myself - although use the Septugaint when looking to understand meaning.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum