|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 10/10/2008 3:10:20 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2986
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
Overall great post, you said it much better than I did!
quote:
If you find that debatable, the literal Hebrew is "thou shalt preserve him". The grammar does not support the word "words" to be the object of the preservation.
Slight correction: the Hebrew really does read "you will preserve (or keep) them"; in Hebrew this is all one word i.e. 'tishmerem' and the final 'mem' is the 2nd person masculine plural declension, in the singular it would be 'tishmero'; also in Hebrew there is no neuter form and so it is quite common to translate he/she as 'it' in English.
However, supporting your interpretation is the fact that the Hebrew word translated 'words' in this verse is 'imrot'; it comes from the verb 'amar' meaning 'to speak'; when the Hebrew bible speaks of God's written words it uses the word 'devar'/'devarim' meaning 'word' or 'thing'. The word of the Lord would be 'devar adonai (YHWH)', but 'and God said' would be 'vayomer Elohim'
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 10/10/2008 12:21:26 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 246
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Slight correction: the Hebrew really does read "you will preserve (or keep) them"; in Hebrew this is all one word i.e. 'tishmerem' and the final 'mem' is the 2nd person masculine plural declension, in the singular it would be 'tishmero'; also in Hebrew there is no neuter form and so it is quite common to translate he/she as 'it' in English.
According to the margin note originally found in the KJV, the Hebrew word is "him". When I took Hebrew, I eagerly looked it up and I thought that I found it confirmed the KJV margin note, but I could be remembering wrong. I'd look it up now, but my Hebrew is too rusty. I hope to start working on refreshing it and learning more sometime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 10/10/2008 1:01:29 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2986
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
quote:
Slight correction: the Hebrew really does read "you will preserve (or keep) them"; in Hebrew this is all one word i.e. 'tishmerem' and the final 'mem' is the 2nd person masculine plural declension, in the singular it would be 'tishmero'; also in Hebrew there is no neuter form and so it is quite common to translate he/she as 'it' in English.
According to the margin note originally found in the KJV, the Hebrew word is "him". When I took Hebrew, I eagerly looked it up and I thought that I found it confirmed the KJV margin note, but I could be remembering wrong. I'd look it up now, but my Hebrew is too rusty. I hope to start working on refreshing it and learning more sometime soon.
I was curious about why the KJV notes might have indicated it was "him"; so I checked my critical text to see if their were any different readings of this text; there was one listed in the LLX (in Greek), but it reads "us" interestingly enough. I still don't know why the KJV would indicate that it was "him" because I can't find any manuscript evidence for that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 10/10/2008 9:34:42 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1825
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is in my mind the important issue. My point in question 3 was this: people are willing to use a "good enough" Critical Text that has many rules of logic applied to all the >5000 available Greek texts (not to mention the other > 15,000 ancient texts) such that it hopefully represents the original....
I think you are picking at words. I don't know where or in what context the words "good enough" came from, if they were said at all. But I don't think he was condoning mediocrity. Scholarship today is waaayyy better than that of the 19th century.
If Scrivener and Burgeon are exaggerated by the KJV advocates as being more sincere, more godly, and better equipped than the scholars of today, it doesn't matter if they don't use the words "good enough." They can certainly be wrong and all indications are that the KJV onlies are simply unintentionally biased and dishonest in their assessments of the newer translations.
quote:
My point here is that their research and product gave huge momentum to the whole Critical Text enterprise, and the current incarnation owes an immense amount to them, both in the naturalistic approach to NT Textual Criticism, and the end product.
Then why in the world would you launch an ad hominem attack on them? Wasn't it an attempt to discredit them based upon something that has nothing to do with their scholarship? I don't agree that they were occultists. But even if they were, their work could either stand on its own---or not.
The point is that you attempted to taint their character with slander. It's that sort of things coming from the KJVO crowd that made me think their views had little substance.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 10/11/2008 6:08:28 PM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 345
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
quote:
I had a Prof. with a doctrate from DTS who supported the view that at least the 1 John verse was put into Greek this way. Apprently, while the TR was being put together, the person in charge wouldn't include that verse because it wasn't in the Greek, so the "officials" who wanted the TR finished translated it from the Latin into Greek and presented it to him. AFter that, it was included. Not 100% sure if it's true, but like I said, a DTS Doctor thinks it is, so it can't be total bunk.
I think you may have mixed up what the Prof said. There are verses in Revelation which have evidence of being backtranslated into Greek. But, there is a story that Erasmus had promised that if he ever found a manuscript which includes that verse, he would include it. We don't know if he ever made such a promise, but, he did find manuscript with the verse included, so it was later included in his Greek NT. That manuscript is a 16th century manuscript, and some believe it may have been copied with that verse added to encourage him to include that verse.
This is from Bible for Today's website. Erasmus had been accused of impiety and neglect of manuscripts by his colleague Edward Lee for only consulting 1 manuscript for his translation of 1 John 5:7. To which Erasmus replies, "Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters." Can you see the sarcasm and impatience? This is hardly a hasty request for a manuscript.
_____________________________
All that is gold does not glitter.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 10/11/2008 6:10:37 PM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 345
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
quote:
Slight correction: the Hebrew really does read "you will preserve (or keep) them"; in Hebrew this is all one word i.e. 'tishmerem' and the final 'mem' is the 2nd person masculine plural declension, in the singular it would be 'tishmero'; also in Hebrew there is no neuter form and so it is quite common to translate he/she as 'it' in English.
According to the margin note originally found in the KJV, the Hebrew word is "him". When I took Hebrew, I eagerly looked it up and I thought that I found it confirmed the KJV margin note, but I could be remembering wrong. I'd look it up now, but my Hebrew is too rusty. I hope to start working on refreshing it and learning more sometime soon.
Which Hebrew text? The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensis (based on the ben Asher Masoretic text based on the Leningrad Codex), or the Daniel Bomberg/ben Chayyim Masoretic text, from which the KJV was translated?
_____________________________
All that is gold does not glitter.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 10/11/2008 6:23:14 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2986
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: johnkw
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
quote:
I had a Prof. with a doctrate from DTS who supported the view that at least the 1 John verse was put into Greek this way. Apprently, while the TR was being put together, the person in charge wouldn't include that verse because it wasn't in the Greek, so the "officials" who wanted the TR finished translated it from the Latin into Greek and presented it to him. AFter that, it was included. Not 100% sure if it's true, but like I said, a DTS Doctor thinks it is, so it can't be total bunk.
I think you may have mixed up what the Prof said. There are verses in Revelation which have evidence of being backtranslated into Greek. But, there is a story that Erasmus had promised that if he ever found a manuscript which includes that verse, he would include it. We don't know if he ever made such a promise, but, he did find manuscript with the verse included, so it was later included in his Greek NT. That manuscript is a 16th century manuscript, and some believe it may have been copied with that verse added to encourage him to include that verse.
This is from Bible for Today's website. Erasmus had been accused of impiety and neglect of manuscripts by his colleague Edward Lee for only consulting 1 manuscript for his translation of 1 John 5:7. To which Erasmus replies, "Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters." Can you see the sarcasm and impatience? This is hardly a hasty request for a manuscript.
Do you realize that the dispute about this verse has nothing to do with the post you quoted? The issue here was regarding a verse that was not in Erasmus' text, and not about one he had translated from Latin. Again the Latin issue only relates to the verses at the end of Revelation.
Interestingly enough, the source you quoted this from has interpreted Erasmus as saying something almost entirely the opposite of what he actually said in order to avoid the concern about the reliability of his text that this quote raises. This kind of spin should raise all kinds of alarm bells warning of the bias of this author.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 10/11/2008 6:45:24 PM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 345
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
This is in my mind the important issue. My point in question 3 was this: people are willing to use a "good enough" Critical Text that has many rules of logic applied to all the >5000 available Greek texts (not to mention the other > 15,000 ancient texts) such that it hopefully represents the original....
I think you are picking at words. I don't know where or in what context the words "good enough" came from, if they were said at all. But I don't think he was condoning mediocrity. Scholarship today is waaayyy better than that of the 19th century.
I'm the one who brought in the words "good enough." So, yes, they were said. And when I said them, I wasn't condoning mediocrity. I really want to know, what is "good enough?" "Good enough" was not used perjoratively. I didn't use them in the sense of a student doing the minimum to pass a class, as opposed to excelling. Rather, in the sense of a teacher giving the students enough help or material to go on to solve a complex problem. From God's perspective, what is "good enough" for His people to have? Let me get this out there: I am not a KJV only person. There are ways it translates things with which I disagree (the lack of knowledge of Granville-Sharp constructions comes to mind). But in my limited research on the Textus Receptus and the KJV, I believe the TR people (as opposed to the KJV only people) are onto something. So back to "good enough." Obviously, not all of God's people have had His perfectly preserved word through the years(whether it's TR or Majority or NA is immaterial at this point), and yet they had enough to go on, so this leads to my question, "What is good enough?" Burgon and Scrivener felt a need to refine the TR, resulting in Scrivener's 1894 version. I simply want to avoid the idea that to be "Textus Receptus preferred" (which at the moment is how I care to describe myself), you have to point to a TR that is absolutely 100.000% perfectly preserved.
quote:
If Scrivener and Burgeon are exaggerated by the KJV advocates as being more sincere, more godly, and better equipped than the scholars of today, it doesn't matter if they don't use the words "good enough." They can certainly be wrong
Anyone can be wrong. They're just men.
quote:
and all indications are that the KJV onlies are simply unintentionally biased and dishonest in their assessments of the newer translations.
Sweeping statement. Which KJV onlies? Ruckmanites?
quote:
quote:
My point here is that their research and product gave huge momentum to the whole Critical Text enterprise, and the current incarnation owes an immense amount to them, both in the naturalistic approach to NT Textual Criticism, and the end product.
Then why in the world would you launch an ad hominem attack on them? Wasn't it an attempt to discredit them based upon something that has nothing to do with their scholarship? I don't agree that they were occultists. But even if they were, their work could either stand on its own---or not.
I'm not saying they weren't well-trained scholars and have no valid insights. I'm simply pointing out that what influences them taints what they produce. How could you say that occult involvement (whether or not they were) would have nothing to do with their scholarship?
quote:
The point is that you attempted to taint their character with slander. It's that sort of things coming from the KJVO crowd that made me think their views had little substance.
Slander? Okay, how about this references and this reference? This doesn't alarm you?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 10/11/2008 7:25:20 PM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 345
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
Do you realize that there are significant difference between the KJV/TR and all know Greek manuscripts that date prior to Erasmus' TR?
I'm pretty new to all this. What is "significant"? Significant in number (there are 140,000 words in the NT) or in theological impact?
quote:
Did you know that there are significant differences between the KJV and translations like the Latin Vulgate that predate the KJV translation?
I wouldn't be surprised. That was the whole impetus behind the Humanist movement of the 1400 and 1500's: The slogan was ad fontes; i.e., let's get to the roots. In the field of Scripture, that meant Erasmus the Humanist would go behind the Vulgate. His Protestant TR successors continued in this tradition.
quote:
Do you realize there are significant differences between the KJV and every non English translation?
What texts are these translations based on?
quote:
Did you know that there are passages in the KJV OT that are not supported by any known Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts?
No. What are they?
quote:
If the argument for the KJV being the only perfect translation is that "God would have perfectly preserved his word" then the questions must be asked:
Why did he NOT preserve his word so perfectly for the first 1500 years of the church?
Why did he preserve his word in only KJV English, and not in any other language, is God partial to only the 16th Century English speakers?
Good thing I don't believe the KJV is His perfectly preserved word.
quote:
BTW - the 99% difference that you quoted is absurdly wrong, one of the things the manuscript record demonstrates is the accuracy of the texts we have. Those "old" manuscripts are far more similar to the later copies than they are different.
Sorry, ran out of time. Gotta answer this one (or try) later. I think I was referring to the lack of Mark 16:9-20.
_____________________________
All that is gold does not glitter.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 10/11/2008 9:51:24 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1825
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
...and all indications are that the KJV onlies are simply unintentionally biased and dishonest in their assessments of the newer translations.
Sweeping statement. Which KJV onlies? Ruckmanites?
Some of each. And it came from personal experience. A college I attended was KJVO as well as some churches I attended. And I have heard Peter Ruckman speak and I have seen a number of his books. I have been personally accused by them of "taking away [people's] Bible" simply because I was open to reading more than one version. I have personally endured their sneering glances as they drove away in their car.
So it was a sweeping statement based upon the personal experience of meeting them face to face and talking with them. Only a few KJVOs seemed open minded enough to discuss it rationally here in CW.
quote:
I'm not saying they weren't well-trained scholars and have no valid insights. I'm simply pointing out that what influences them taints what they produce. How could you say that occult involvement (whether or not they were) would have nothing to do with their scholarship?
Look. Their work is open for review. It's not like they have hidden their material away from the world.
quote:
Slander? Okay, how about this references and this reference? This doesn't alarm you?
No. Why should it? They didn't translated any Bible I have read. I don't worship those men and don't admire them. The only people who seem to elevate the status of their influence is the KJVOs. They bring their names up for the purpose of discrediting the entire Bible translation movement.
Frankly, I am rather dubious about the source you reference. The author of the article places all the recent modern translations into the same bag. Somehow, because of the activities of Westcott, we now have to question all of the rest of the translations that he never even touched!
So, there is certainly slander there. Guilt by dubious association. Do you realize that King James I of England was accused of being bisexual? Shouldn't that just as equally taint the KJV?
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 10/12/2008 12:01:06 AM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 345
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
quote:
...and all indications are that the KJV onlies are simply unintentionally biased and dishonest in their assessments of the newer translations.
Sweeping statement. Which KJV onlies? Ruckmanites?
Some of each. And it came from personal experience. A college I attended was KJVO as well as some churches I attended. And I have heard Peter Ruckman speak and I have seen a number of his books. I have been personally accused by them of "taking away [people's] Bible" simply because I was open to reading more than one version. I have personally endured their sneering glances as they drove away in their car.
So it was a sweeping statement based upon the personal experience of meeting them face to face and talking with them. Only a few KJVOs seemed open minded enough to discuss it rationally here in CW.
Well, it seems your sweeping statement was well-founded. I'm sorry you had to experience such lousy treatment. I'm all for being open-minded. Jesus is the truth, so honest truth-seekers have nothing to fear and can find truth wherever it is.
quote:
So, there is certainly slander there. Guilt by dubious association. Do you realize that King James I of England was accused of being bisexual? Shouldn't that just as equally taint the KJV?
Again, I brought it up because one must always consider the influences affecting any source of nourishment. If I know that cows are grazing upstream of me, I won't drink the water, at least not without a good filtration system or chlorine tablets. You apparently think that modern scholarship is that good filtration system. Maybe so. But I'm still weighing the evidence and asking provocative questions that are provocative also to me. 2 months ago I wouldn't have even given this stuff a second thought, and thought that people who hold only to the TR were backwards. My impression now is that despite all the kooks and judgmental people, there are some even-keeled TR-only people out there. Same thing with Christianity in general. God bless.
_____________________________
All that is gold does not glitter.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 10/12/2008 12:10:00 AM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 345
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Do you realize that King James I of England was accused of being bisexual? Shouldn't that just as equally taint the KJV?
Yes, I realize this. Well, no, the accusation shouldn't taint anything. The truth of it would, perhaps. Although he had nothing to do with the actual work of translation, other than authorizing and funding it. It was the 47 learned men of faith that should really be under scrutiny.
With W & H, it's different, because they are the ones who actually did the work, and they had an agenda. But, you're right, we should concentrate on the current scholars: guys and gals like the Alands, Metzger, and the almost-pope Martini. Great credentials, but what are their presuppositions, and what faith do they bring to the task?
But I don't believe James was homosexual, or bisexual. There is a book out by Stephen A. Coston, Sr., called King James The VI of Scotland & I Of England Unjustly Accused? Haven't read it, but have read a summary which exonerates him in this matter.
_____________________________
All that is gold does not glitter.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 10/12/2008 12:46:34 AM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 345
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
1-3:
God's word being preserved does not mean that we will have a perfect, undiluted understanding of Scripture as we would from the original autographs. It is simply not possible.
Not sure that we'd have a perfect undiluted understanding even if we had the original autographs. There'd still be argumentation between Calvinists and Arminians, for example. But why is it possible for God to breathe out Scripture, but impossible for Him to preserve it perfectly? (Bear with me, cause I'm trying to work this one out. It's just a question. I tend to think He preserved it really really well, rather than perfectly.)
quote:
Even reading the Bible in English, with no knowledge of how the original languages works, does not give a, in my opinion, full understanding.
Fully agree with you there.
quote:
It does, however, give an entirely sufficient understanding.
And there.
quote:
4-5:
If you want to go dirt-digging, I'm sure that fault can be found with every translation. I tend to trust in God to work in spite of our flaws.
Praise God for that.
I only bring it up because it's relevant to their work, the presuppositions they bring, and the conclusions they make.
quote:
6-7:
How do we know those words were stripped away by later versions, and not added to the Textus Receptus? Most serious Greek scholars I have spoken with do not think that the Mark 16 ending was written by the original author. Same with the other verses. They were likely added later by scribes to "help along" their readers.
I understand these arguments. But again, scholars have their presuppositions. "Likely" is based on some philosophical somewhat-scientific naturalistic framework. The people I've been listening to lately have a completely different approach to Scripture altogether, a presuppositional one. (But then again, Naturalism is a supposition.)
quote:
9:
'Til it breaks down, I imagine. But my Honda isn't too rusty. Just got the oil changed and everything.
Well that's good. Fortunately, God won't let His Word break down. Now, I understand that committed Christians both of the TR-preferred and Nestle-Aland-preferred type can believe this.
quote:
10:
Which would you trust more, a few copies of George Washington's writings from 1800, or many copies of George Washington's writings from 1900?
The 1800 ones. But here's where the presuppositions come in. I have absolutely no reason to believe that George Washington's writings will be providentially preserved throughout the centuries. And I'm still left with a little doubt about the choice. But God said not one jot or tittle of the Law would pass. He said His sayings would never pass away. Paul also said that savage wolves would come in later. You'd expect the enemy to try to mar (no pun intended) God's word, and in fact that's what guys like Marcion did. Now that I think about it, I would be surprised if there were no counterfeit Scriptures. So this theological presupposition effectively lowers the older-is-better criterion somewhat, though it still is, of course, useful.
_____________________________
All that is gold does not glitter.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 10/12/2008 5:46:50 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1825
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
Again, I brought it up because one must always consider the influences affecting any source of nourishment. If I know that cows are grazing upstream of me, I won't drink the water, at least not without a good filtration system or chlorine tablets. You apparently think that modern scholarship is that good filtration system.
John,
I use the NET Bible. Maybe you've heard of it. A few of the scholars come from Dallas Seminary. What is unique about it is that it contains an abundance of translator's notes and few, if any, commentary on doctrine. There is actually more printed for translator's notes than Bible text. So, you have some idea why it was rendered the way it was written.
You're analogy of water is interesting. I work in the municipal water treatment industry.
quote:
But I don't believe James was homosexual, or bisexual. There is a book out by Stephen A. Coston, Sr., called King James The VI of Scotland & I Of England Unjustly Accused? Haven't read it, but have read a summary which exonerates him in this matter.
Personally, I don't either. But the KJVO's would not hesitate to bring up something like that if Westcott and Hort's patron had been.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
2 Chronicles 3:4 - 10/12/2008 8:09:02 AM
|
|
|
Strider33
Posts: 155
Joined: 4/24/2008
Status: offline
|
The NIV and the KJV differ on the height of the front porch of the temple.
The KJV says that it's 120 cubits high, while the NIV says that it's 20 cubits high.
Where does this difference come from?
_____________________________
Not all those who wander are lost.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 10/12/2008 8:54:21 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 9948
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: johnkw
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Do you realize that King James I of England was accused of being bisexual? Shouldn't that just as equally taint the KJV?
Yes, I realize this. Well, no, the accusation shouldn't taint anything. The truth of it would, perhaps. Although he had nothing to do with the actual work of translation, other than authorizing and funding it. It was the 47 learned men of faith that should really be under scrutiny.
With W & H, it's different, because they are the ones who actually did the work, and they had an agenda. But, you're right, we should concentrate on the current scholars: guys and gals like the Alands, Metzger, and the almost-pope Martini. Great credentials, but what are their presuppositions, and what faith do they bring to the task?
But I don't believe James was homosexual, or bisexual. There is a book out by Stephen A. Coston, Sr., called King James The VI of Scotland & I Of England Unjustly Accused? Haven't read it, but have read a summary which exonerates him in this matter.
The statement I put in bold print is not entirely accurate. He did not personally translatethe KJV but he did set the parameters in which the scholars had to work. Incuding seaying the new translation had to support the positions of the Church of England.
_____________________________
A friend gave me a report with Stats showing that 4,153,237 people got married last year. Now I don't want to start any trouble but I can't help but wonder. Shouldn't that be an even number?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 10/13/2008 12:00:42 AM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 345
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
quote:
ORIGINAL: johnkw
Yes, I realize this. Well, no, the accusation shouldn't taint anything. The truth of it would, perhaps. Although he had nothing to do with the actual work of translation, other than authorizing and funding it. It was the 47 learned men of faith that should really be under scrutiny.
The statement I put in bold print is not entirely accurate. He did not personally translatethe KJV but he did set the parameters in which the scholars had to work. Incuding seaying the new translation had to support the positions of the Church of England.
Thanks for the clarification. I do remember that he set some or all of the ground rules. I would like to know what he actually said regarding the translations having to support Anglican positions.
< Message edited by johnkw -- 10/13/2008 12:11:57 AM >
_____________________________
All that is gold does not glitter.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 10/13/2008 6:30:46 PM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 9948
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
Actually he had all teh footnotes and side notes that put down tha papal removed. These were included in the Geneva Bible. The Geneve Bible was a markedly Protestant Bible. He order the footnotes removed and simply said the new version should support the doctrine of the Church of England. THe result was a pro-Catholic Bible.
As a side note of interest it was mainly the Geneva Bible that was brought to America by the pilgrims and not the KJV. That came later even in this country.
ETA I made a three page blog about this very subject. If you care to read it HERE is a link.
_____________________________
A friend gave me a report with Stats showing that 4,153,237 people got married last year. Now I don't want to start any trouble but I can't help but wonder. Shouldn't that be an even number?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 12/1/2008 10:19:30 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2986
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BeeLuvsAva
I was talking to a friend a few days ago about what translation of the bible I read, and what he reads. I have been seeking to learn more about our heavenly father more and more within the past few years, I have been a christian for about 2 years now, and I have been reading the NKJV.
My friend tells me that the only translation of the bible that is correct to the original Hebrew bible, would be the KJV. I have always read the NKJV, because I feel I can understand it better, and even with this translation I do have a hard time understanding. I would like to know if this is true, if the only correct translation would be the KJV. He has told me that EVERY other translation is wrong, now he does not have anything to back it up, but I still wonder if it's true or not.
Your friend's understanding is actually quite incorrect. The translators of the KJV were highly skilled in Greek, but less skilled in Hebrew and Aramaic. There were numerous mistakes made in the translation of the Hebrew, and in some of the particularly difficult passages, the translators of the KJV followed the LXX (Ancient Greek translation) rather than the Hebrew.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
