|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 8:24:26 PM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1002
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
quote:
ORIGINAL: rosswell59
Serious scholars use interpretations too, their own. But what about the rest of us who don't have a capacity to translate the original languages
Such people lie prone to the interpretation of scholars, who may be mistaken, who may be motivated by desire to corrupt. Mistakes and corruptions can be easily detected by those with access to original languages, and access to them is available quite cheaply these days, particularly for computer owners.
When you access original languages and interpret them for yourself then you are your own interpreter and you have your own interpretation but that doesn't necessarily make it any better than the more popular ones. In fact I'll put my money on the more popular ones unless you can show that you have a better grasp of the original languages than those who interpreted KJV and particularly Mr. John Darby who was so linguistically gifted that he translated scripture into 5 different lanquages and whose spiritual insight has been matched by few.
quote:
quote:
there are very good scholarly interpretations including the KJV which are adequate to meet the needs of most believers.
The KJV is not the Word of God, then. But surely only the Word of God is adequate?
So which manuscript is that? It is all subject to one's scholarship and is only a matter of degree of accuracy since none can claim to be the original Word of God as penned by the original writers.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 8:58:34 PM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rosswell59
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
quote:
ORIGINAL: rosswell59
Serious scholars use interpretations too, their own. But what about the rest of us who don't have a capacity to translate the original languages
Such people lie prone to the interpretation of scholars, who may be mistaken, who may be motivated by desire to corrupt. Mistakes and corruptions can be easily detected by those with access to original languages, and access to them is available quite cheaply these days, particularly for computer owners.
quote:
When you access original languages and interpret them for yourself then you are your own interpreter and you have your own interpretation but that doesn't necessarily make it any better than the more popular ones.
Am I likely to deliberately corrupt my own translation?
quote:
quote:
there are very good scholarly interpretations including the KJV which are adequate to meet the needs of most believers.
The KJV is not the Word of God, then. But surely only the Word of God is adequate?
quote:
So which manuscript is that?
So there is no such thing as God's Word anyway? There is just some misty muttering that humanity can pick and choose from according to whim?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 10:42:16 PM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1002
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
Everything we have today has been touched by human handling both in transcription or translation. That being said, I still believe that a man of faith depending upon God can discern what is scriptural and what isn't. I also believe that God's grace has prevented any serious corruption from coming in. Even some of the worst translations are reliable for the most fundamental truths. How do you know your translation is pure? Are you better than the translators who have translated the better translations. Are you even as good? I doubt it.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/15/2007 11:13:08 PM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rosswell59
Everything we have today has been touched by human handling both in transcription or translation. That being said, I still believe that a man of faith depending upon God can discern what is scriptural and what isn't. I also believe that God's grace has prevented any serious corruption from coming in. Even some of the worst translations are reliable for the most fundamental truths. How do you know your translation is pure? Are you better than the translators who have translated the better translations. Are you even as good? I doubt it.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
So what you are saying, poster, is that you are a Christian, and I am not. Which is not a debate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/16/2007 2:39:35 AM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1002
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
The name is Ross and no that is not at all what I'm saying. My point is that you are human and thus you are fallible and unless you are a more highly gifted person than I percieve, you aren't going to do a better job than the translators who give us good literal translations.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/16/2007 6:38:11 AM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rosswell59
The name is Ross and no that is not at all what I'm saying.
What you are failing to do is answer questions.
quote:
My point is that you are human and thus you are fallible and unless you are a more highly gifted person than I percieve
Maybe your perceptions are far too primitive to be of any value. How can a person who knows nothing of original languages even dare to comment on this matter?
Otoh, maybe you are very frightened of what the Scripture actually says, which you have learned from the NIV. Maybe that is what is driving to you making derogatory personal remarks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/16/2007 7:26:16 AM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1002
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
It is not my intention to be derogatory. I don't use NIV. I use either Darby or KJV and occasionally NKJV. Darby is my preferred study bible. I'm not afraid of anything scripture teaches. Do you think we all need to be Greek and Hebrew scholars to understand God's word for us? Where in scripture do you learn that? I don't know what question I haven't answered but if you'll remind me I will be happy to do so.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/16/2007 8:22:51 AM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rosswell59
It is not my intention to be derogatory. I don't use NIV. I use either Darby or KJV and occasionally NKJV. Darby is my preferred study bible. I'm not afraid of anything scripture teaches.
Debates are not primarily concerned with sentences containing personal pronouns. Perhaps it is an idea for people to erase all such sentences before pressing 'OK'.
quote:
Do you think we all need to be Greek and Hebrew scholars to understand God's word for us?
That needs re-wording, for instance.
quote:
I don't know what question I haven't answered
See #927.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/16/2007 8:59:27 AM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11497
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Please keep this on the subject of KJV Only debate. Cut out the personal attacks and grammar lessons.
Thank you!
Tricia
Forums Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the forums or chat.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/16/2007 1:31:36 PM
|
|
|
DadOf13
Posts: 6
Joined: 3/28/2007
Status: offline
|
Wow, I started reading this post a couple of days ago. This is truly an important issue! As you can tell I haven't been at Crosswalk very long, but that doesn't mean I am not opinionated  and dogmatic  .
That said, I am not ashamed to say that I am a KJV man! My studies on the important issues, such as textual integrity have led me solidly to the Majority Texts. I do not believe that people who read other versions are going to hell, or that they are lesser Christians than I. However, I am very concerned about the integrity of many translations. One example is Philippians 2:6. Some translations are good, some are not good at all. Obviously I think the KJV is good.
BTW. I have no intention of attacking your character, or challenging your salvation. I would only hope to persuade some of you to take an unbiased approach (from both camps) to this contraversy.
Sincerely,
Dad of 13 awesome kids!
_____________________________
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/16/2007 6:22:04 PM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1002
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I don't know what question I haven't answered
quote:
See #927.
Try #928
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/16/2007 6:24:29 PM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rosswell59
quote:
I don't know what question I haven't answered
quote:
See #927.
Try #928
No answers in it. Questions snipped.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/18/2007 3:25:32 PM
|
|
|
DadOf13
Posts: 6
Joined: 3/28/2007
Status: offline
|
Here is a link to an article that provides tons of external evidence on this subject. http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/ Check it out and let me know what you think.
Php 2:6 Did Jesus need to grasp for equality with God?
Your Brother in Christ Jesus,
Ron
Born October 29, 1964
Born again, Jan 29, 1984 
_____________________________
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/18/2007 3:29:15 PM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DadOf13
Php 2:6 Did Jesus need to grasp for equality with God?
Why not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/19/2007 7:56:01 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1781
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
quote:
ORIGINAL: DadOf13
Php 2:6 Did Jesus need to grasp for equality with God?
Why not?
Because He Himself is God, and remained fully God while being fully sinless Man. When He said He was the Son of God, He made Himself equal with God. When He said He was the "I AM" He said that He was the Lord God Almighty.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/20/2007 4:21:34 AM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ezra
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
quote:
ORIGINAL: DadOf13
Php 2:6 Did Jesus need to grasp for equality with God?
Why not?
Because He Himself is God, and remained fully God while being fully sinless Man. When He said He was the Son of God, He made Himself equal with God. When He said He was the "I AM" He said that He was the Lord God Almighty.
What is this to do with KJVO?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/20/2007 2:52:44 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1781
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ezra
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
quote:
ORIGINAL: DadOf13
Php 2:6 Did Jesus need to grasp for equality with God?
Why not?
Because He Himself is God, and remained fully God while being fully sinless Man. When He said He was the Son of God, He made Himself equal with God. When He said He was the "I AM" He said that He was the Lord God Almighty.
What is this to do with KJVO?
Everything.
The KJV presents the truths that (1) Christ did not think it robbery to be equal with God, since He called Himself the great "I AM" and (2) He made Himself of "no reputation" or "no account", by not seeking the praises of men, or desiring to be popular with the crowds. Many times, after healing individuals, He commanded them to say nothing to anyone. When the multitudes sought to make Him king, He avoided it.
The modern versions, on the other hand, promote the false doctrine of kenosis -- that (1) Christ "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" (NIV) and (2) that Christ "emptied Himself" of His true deity. Both of those teaching are false. Theological liberalism has attempted to promote the teaching that Jesus of Nazareth was less than God when He walked this earth. The truth is that He was fully God from eternity past and will remain so for eternity to come.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/20/2007 3:54:08 PM
|
|
|
rosswell59
Posts: 1002
Joined: 3/25/2006
Status: offline
|
Ezra,
What's wrong with this:
For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus; 6 who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God; 7 but emptied himself, taking a bondman's form, taking his place in the likeness of men; 8 and having been found in figure as a man, humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, and that the death of the cross.
To me, the contrast between "subsisting in the form of God" and "likeness of men" or "figure as a man" drives the truth home even a little more.
Yours in Christ,
Ross
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/20/2007 4:37:35 PM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ezra
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ezra
quote:
ORIGINAL: Prado
quote:
ORIGINAL: DadOf13
Php 2:6 Did Jesus need to grasp for equality with God?
Why not?
Because He Himself is God, and remained fully God while being fully sinless Man. When He said He was the Son of God, He made Himself equal with God. When He said He was the "I AM" He said that He was the Lord God Almighty.
What is this to do with KJVO?
Everything.
The KJV presents the truths that (1) Christ did not think it robbery to be equal with God, since He called Himself the great "I AM" and (2) He made Himself of "no reputation" or "no account", by not seeking the praises of men, or desiring to be popular with the crowds. Many times, after healing individuals, He commanded them to say nothing to anyone. When the multitudes sought to make Him king, He avoided it.
The modern versions, on the other hand, promote the false doctrine of kenosis -- that (1) Christ "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped" (NIV) and (2) that Christ "emptied Himself" of His true deity. Both of those teaching are false. Theological liberalism has attempted to promote the teaching that Jesus of Nazareth was less than God when He walked this earth. The truth is that He was fully God from eternity past and will remain so for eternity to come.
Phil 2:6
'Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.' KJV
'Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.' NIV
Now please tell me where the NIV says anything less. 'Form' can mean mere 'appearance', so 'being in the form of God' is much more open to heresy than the NIV's 'being in very nature God', which leaves no doubt about Christ's divinity. It is the KJV that is 'dodgy'- though not deliberately, I think. It was a reasonable translation for its day.
Here, imv, is the best 'literal' translation:
'He was always in very nature God, yet He did not cling to this equality with God.'
As for ekénoosen, the NIV renders it literally, as does the RCC's NJB, and the KJV makes an interpretation. If that puts anyone's nose out of joint, theologically speaking, they must sort it out themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/23/2007 2:32:24 PM
|
|
|
DadOf13
Posts: 6
Joined: 3/28/2007
Status: offline
|
Personally I think Php. 2:6 is a good example of the importance of a reliable translation. It has been a long established doctrinal position that Jesus is equal with God. Some translations cast shadows of doubt upon this orthodox view by carelessly choosing a phrase that implies that Jesus was somehow less than equal with God. The Darby translation Rosswell cites is careful to maintain the idea of Christ's pre-incarnate equality. Though "rapine" might require a dictionary for many readers (such as myself  ), it is good to broaden one's vocabulary.
Harpagmos - (robbery) comes from the word "harpazo" (to take by force ( To Rob?) ). The idea being conveyed in Php 2:6 is that Jesus was already equal with God and did not consider Himself undeserving of that position. Paul is making it clear that Jesus did not become a man to achieve or earn His part in the Godhead. The pattern that we are to follow is servant leadership. Though we may have "rights" as Christians or church members, the example we are to follow is the Lord Jesus. He had all the rights of Deity, yet He chose to submit Himself to pain, discomfort, temptation, and even death for the sake of mankind. His incarnation was a sacrifice in and of itself, that led to the ultimate sacrifice and eventual resurrection.
The care and accuracy of the KJV makes me love it all the more!
BTW. Did anyone check out the link?
Here it is again so you don't have to scroll up. http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/index.html
Blessings,
Ron
_____________________________
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/23/2007 8:14:10 PM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DadOf13
Personally I think Php. 2:6 is a good example of the importance of a reliable translation. It has been a long established doctrinal position that Jesus is equal with God. Some translations cast shadows of doubt upon this orthodox view by carelessly choosing a phrase that implies that Jesus was somehow less than equal with God.
Which ones do that?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/25/2007 9:24:44 AM
|
|
|
DadOf13
Posts: 6
Joined: 3/28/2007
Status: offline
|
As far as I am concerned, the central issue of this debate is manuscript evidence. Some people are convinced that the Westcott and Hort theory of textual transmission is the correct theory. I am convinced otherwise. I believe there are significant flaws in their reasoning. For example. Hort explained that to interpret a passage where two or more texts vary the shortest would be given the highest priority known as brevior lectio potior. This is based upon the presupposition that copiests added their thoughts to the texts. On the same subject, He also used the more complex or most difficult to understand text based upon another assumption. He assumed that copiest would have simplified the difficult phrases and by default the more complex must be the most pure. This has become known as proclivi lectioni praestat ardua. Neither of these positions are demonstrable or defensible. These are a couple of examples of what I consider to be the flawed thinking employed by Hort to reject the TR out of hand.
Here is a quote from Hort regarding the manuscripts of the TR, referred to as the "Syrian" text by Hort.
"In themselves Syrian readings hardly ever offend at first. With rare exceptions they run smoothly and easily in form, and yield at once to even a careless reader a passable sense, free from surprises and seemingly transparent. But when distinctively Syrian readings are minutely compared one after the other with the rival variants, their claim to be regarded as the original readings is found gradually to diminish, and at last to disappear."
So Hort says the Syrian manuscripts are easy to understand. Based upon His theory they must be rejected and the weight of favor must go to the Alexandrian texts which are more complex. The more I study the issues the more I am convinced that my KJV is reliable. I see God working through authorities and throughout history to preserve His Word for me and generations to come. I marvel at His goodness, His mercy, His grace and His wisdom. I love God! I love His Word! To hold in my hands God's Word in my language is a privilege I do not take lightly.
BTW, did you check out the link? I will post it again for those of you who are last post readers . I know there are many who skip all the stuff in between and go to the end. So for you and for those of you who haven't taken the time yet here it is again. http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/index.html I really would like to hear from those of you who have visited this link.
Many Blessings,
Ron
_____________________________
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/25/2007 9:40:55 AM
|
|
|
Prado
Posts: 103
Joined: 5/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DadOf13
As far as I am concerned, the central issue of this debate is manuscript evidence.
So it is not very important if there are translations in use that imply that Jesus was somehow less than equal with God. Basic heresy is winked at by KJVOers, it appears. Never mind manuscripts.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/25/2007 10:50:24 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1827
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DadOf13
Personally I think Php. 2:6 is a good example of the importance of a reliable translation. It has been a long established doctrinal position that Jesus is equal with God. Some translations cast shadows of doubt upon this orthodox view by carelessly choosing a phrase that implies that Jesus was somehow less than equal with God.
With the exception of the JW's New World Translation, I am not aware of a single recent translation that casts doubt on the deity of Christ. That is KJVO slander. And slanderous speech ought not to be done. With regard to Phil 2:6, there may be a difference of opinion with regard to how it ought to be rendered, but that opinion is not an attempt to detract from the doctrine of Jesus' deity.
Let take a look at John 1:18.
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)
18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. (NIV)
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (NASB)
18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)
Of three popular recent translations, the doctrine of Jesus' deity is actually stronger in them than it is in the KJV. If there was a premeditated effort to do injury to the doctrine of Jesus' deity, it seems unlikely that the more recent translations would render the translation in favor of Jesus' deity.
Further, Evangelical Christians still teach and preach the deity of Christ even when they no longer use 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 - 5/25/2007 11:59:10 AM
|
|
|
DadOf13
Posts: 6
Joined: 3/28/2007
Status: offline
|
Salander - To defame; to injure by maliciously uttering a false report respecting one; to tarnish or impair the reputation of one by false tales, maliciously told or propagated. Webster's 1828 English Dictionary.
Slander is what has been done in some of the recent posts above  . However, I made no statement saying that translators made an "...attempt to detract from the doctrine of Jesus' deity." If you attribute this to me, you are mistaken. I quote my statement again. "Some translations cast shadows of doubt upon this orthodox view by carelessly choosing a phrase that implies that Jesus was somehow less than equal with God." My statement is not in the least slanderous. I have not attributed evil intent to the translators as you charge me. Whether or not translators intend to degrade Christ's deity is not mine to judge. God will judge those issues. In my judgment, translators who choose to imply that Jesus needed to grasp for equality are not being faithful to the text or the context. This in my estimation is "careless".
As I stated in an earlier post. The manuscript evidence favors the translation, "thought it not robbery". Granted this is my opinion .
I agree with the premise that slanderous speech ought not to be done. Even more, I will make every effort not to succumb to that temptation.
I am also interested in your opinion of the Westcott and Hort methodology for textual criticism. Do you agree that their reasoning is sound? Is it not possible that some copiests chose to shorten, rather than lengthen the text? Is it unreasonable to consider that uninspired commentary upon the scriptures would make the text less understandable?
Have you been to the link yet? I still haven't received feedback from anyone.
In humble respect,
Ron
_____________________________
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
