|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 11/24/2007 10:19:22 PM
|
|
|
antiaging
Posts: 67
Joined: 9/21/2007
Status: offline
|
I suggest that you disregard James White because he don't know what hes is talking about when speaking of the old manuscripts.
He erroneously thinks the Alexandrian texts from the 4th century which were corrupted by gnostic heretics, are the oldest texts. He is wrong.
The Byzantine (also called textus receptus or majority text) can be traced back to the first Peshitta AD 150 (the nt in syriac) and the bible of the Waldensians AD 157, which has the KJV 1John 5:7, which all Alexandrian texts omit.
The masoretic text Isaiah matches the Dead Sea scroll Isaiah word for word. So the validity of the masoretic text of the Jews for the Old Testament can be established with certainty back to at least the first century. The King James version old testament is translated from the massoretic text. The catholic bibles and the modern English versions have an Old testament that differs from the massoretic text in 5% of important places showing the Alexandrian text to be corrupted.
See Brittannica online, article on massoretic text. Considered to be the real authentic Old Testament scriptures of the Jews.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 11/24/2007 10:38:49 PM
|
|
|
antiaging
Posts: 67
Joined: 9/21/2007
Status: offline
|
Don't trust the New King James version, the nkjv. It it not an accurate translation.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/New%20King%20James%20Bible/nkjv-heresy.htm
Trust the old King James version the kjv, with the middle english. It is the best translation of the real unaltered texts.
Get a big dictionary if you have trouble with middle english.
The american heritage dictionary explains middle english terms.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/24/2007 10:53:17 PM
|
|
|
antiaging
Posts: 67
Joined: 9/21/2007
Status: offline
|
The real unaltered texts are the masoretic text of the Jews Old Testament and the byzantine (also called textus receptus) New Testament. The King James version is translated from these genuine unaltered texts.
The catholic bibles and most of the modern english versions have corrupted greek texts from Alexandria Egypt, that were changed in the 4th century by gnostic heretics, mixed in with the other texts. About 5% of the modern english versions have been altered; words added, deleted, changed, so that 5% is not what the original author wrote, no matter how you try to translate it. That 5% is in important places about doctrine.
You can read about this at this website:
http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/articles/kingjamesbible.asp
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/25/2007 1:52:52 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 247
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I suggest that you disregard James White because he don't know what hes is talking about when speaking of the old manuscripts.
He erroneously thinks the Alexandrian texts from the 4th century which were corrupted by gnostic heretics, are the oldest texts. He is wrong.
My information concerning the Waldensian Bible which is posted just before your posts, did not come from James White, it came from my own research. It does NOT date back to 157, and it was NOT translated from the Byzantine text. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate in the 12 century.
The Peshitta does NOT date back to 150AD and it does NOT reflect the Textus Receptus. It was translated around the 4th century and is a mixed text, as all 4th century texts are. I found a copy of an English translation of the Peshitta, and I did some of my own comparisons. It does NOT have 1 John 5:7.
By the way, the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine or Majority text are not the same thing, although they are very close. 1 John 5:7 is NOT, repeat NOT found in the Byzantine text, with the exception of 4 extremely late manuscripts, so recent that a couple of them are more recent than the first printed Greek New Testament, and were apparantly copied from the third printed Greek New Testament. It is found only in the Textus Receptus and the Latin Vulgate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/25/2007 6:34:20 AM
|
|
|
amyk
Posts: 500
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Trust the old King James version the kjv, with the middle english. It is the best translation of the real unaltered texts.
Get a big dictionary if you have trouble with middle english.
A good translation should enable one to read an accurate Bible without requiring all these extra helps. Many people in the world can barely afford a Bible let alone a giant dictionary to help them understand Middle English. If you are going to have to go to this much trouble, why not just read the "real unaltered texts" and have Hebrew and Greek dictionaries and Hebrew and Greek grammar books to help you understand the meaning?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/25/2007 4:44:14 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 445
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
I'm jumping straight into the end of this one... having read nothing beyond the last page. Until recently I didn't even know this was a serious teaching.
Just so I know the idea - does this imply that to really study a Bible you must read/speak English? (or I'm guessing being fluent in Hebrew/Greek would be acceptable too?)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/25/2007 11:20:47 PM
|
|
|
Aphobos
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/22/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
Until recently I didn't even know this was a serious teaching.
It's not a "serious" teaching. For informed treatments of this decidedly silly teaching, I recommend D.A. Carson's The King James Version Debate and James R. White's The KJV-Only Controversy. To the reader with even a modicum of good sense, these works should be sufficient to innoculate against the virus of KJV-Onlyism.
~Aphobos
< Message edited by Aphobos -- 11/25/2007 11:29:05 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/25/2007 11:53:09 PM
|
|
|
antiaging
Posts: 67
Joined: 9/21/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
quote:
I suggest that you disregard James White because he don't know what hes is talking about when speaking of the old manuscripts.
He erroneously thinks the Alexandrian texts from the 4th century which were corrupted by gnostic heretics, are the oldest texts. He is wrong.
My information concerning the Waldensian Bible which is posted just before your posts, did not come from James White, it came from my own research. It does NOT date back to 157, and it was NOT translated from the Byzantine text. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate in the 12 century.
The Peshitta does NOT date back to 150AD and it does NOT reflect the Textus Receptus. It was translated around the 4th century and is a mixed text, as all 4th century texts are. I found a copy of an English translation of the Peshitta, and I did some of my own comparisons. It does NOT have 1 John 5:7.
By the way, the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine or Majority text are not the same thing, although they are very close. 1 John 5:7 is NOT, repeat NOT found in the Byzantine text, with the exception of 4 extremely late manuscripts, so recent that a couple of them are more recent than the first printed Greek New Testament, and were apparantly copied from the third printed Greek New Testament. It is found only in the Textus Receptus and the Latin Vulgate.
There are two peshittas. The first one is byzantine and dates back to AD 150. [The peshitta was re-written in the 4th century.]
I read that the Waldenses bible has the KJV 1John 5:7 which has been removed from all of the modern bibles having the alexandrian text. That verse identifies it as byzantine text.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
The textus receptus is the recieved text.
http://www.logosresourcepages.org/Versions/received.htm
Now according to scholars, when was the Peshitta translated from Greek? A translation of the New Testament into Syrian was made about 150 A.D. according to Kenyon in his book Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. This early translation of the New Testament agreed with the Traditional Text or the Received Text. And in fact there is little question, even by proponents of the critical text, that the Peshitta Version was translated from a Greek text rooted in the Received Text. (The King James Version Defended; Dr. E. V. Hills’ p.172). John Burgon noted that the churches of the region of Syria have always used the Peshilta. There has never been a time when these churches did not use the Received-Text-based Peshitta. The greater point, however, is that one of the earliest churches of the Christian era used a translation of the New Testament based upon the Received Text. That is a clear indication that the Received Text was the true text of the New Testament with roots leading back to autographa.
The Italic Bible (AD157) "Italy, France and Great Britain were once provinces of the old Roman Empire. Latin was then the language of the common people. So the first translations of the Bible in these countries were made from the Greek Vulgate into Latin. One of the first of these Latin Bibles was for the Waldenses in northern Italy, translated not later than 157 AD and was known as the Italic Version.
http://www.scionofzion.com/olv.htm
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2007 12:10:03 AM
|
|
|
antiaging
Posts: 67
Joined: 9/21/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: amyk
quote:
Trust the old King James version the kjv, with the middle english. It is the best translation of the real unaltered texts.
Get a big dictionary if you have trouble with middle english.
A good translation should enable one to read an accurate Bible without requiring all these extra helps. Many people in the world can barely afford a Bible let alone a giant dictionary to help them understand Middle English. If you are going to have to go to this much trouble, why not just read the "real unaltered texts" and have Hebrew and Greek dictionaries and Hebrew and Greek grammar books to help you understand the meaning?
The changes that were made in the modern english versions attack important doctrines of the Christion faith.
virgin birth
deity of Christ
inerrancy of the bible
trinity
Things like that.
They are very subtle changes that don't defend important christian doctrines.
You can read the King James version, without a dictionary. The places where the middle english would cause any kind of misunderstanding are few and not that important.
There is a big difference in Isaiah, when the KJV says a virgin shall have a child and the corrupted modern versions say a young maid shall have a child.
These three are one, 1John 5:7, the most important single trinity scripture in the bible, is removed from all the modern versions. The gnostics that deleted it did not believe in the deity of Christ. [That verse is in the Waldenses bible from AD 157. The Italic version.]
The modern versions have 1John 5:8 in its place.
That is the sort of thing I am talking about.
The Old KJV might be in middle English but it is the best translation of the real unaltered texts, done by linguistic sholars at English universities appointed by the king.
There have been no revisions of the King James bible. There have only been new editions to upgrade the English. The KJV now is essentially identical to the 1611 version.
[What was done with the modern versions was revisions. They mixed corrupted texts vaticanus and sinaiticus with the real texts and so the modern versions are 5% in error in important places.]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2007 12:15:53 AM
|
|
|
antiaging
Posts: 67
Joined: 9/21/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aphobos
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
Until recently I didn't even know this was a serious teaching.
It's not a "serious" teaching. For informed treatments of this decidedly silly teaching, I recommend D.A. Carson's The King James Version Debate and James R. White's The KJV-Only Controversy. To the reader with even a modicum of good sense, these works should be sufficient to innoculate against the virus of KJV-Onlyism.
~Aphobos
For really informed treatments I recommend these two websites here.
One of them shows why James White don't know what he is talking about.
http://www.logosresourcepages.org/Versions/received.htm
http://www.scionofzion.com/olv.htm
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2007 2:50:36 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 247
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
There are two peshittas. The first one is byzantine and dates back to AD 150. [The peshitta was re-written in the 4th century.]
The Peshitto translated in 150AD was the OLD Testament. The NEW Testament Peshitta was translated in the 4th century. And, that translation is not a translation of the Textus Receptus. It is a translation of a text type that is mixed. I've read passages of it myself.
quote:
John Burgon noted that the churches of the region of Syria have always used the Peshilta. There has never been a time when these churches did not use the Received-Text-based Peshitta. The greater point, however, is that one of the earliest churches of the Christian era used a translation of the New Testament based upon the Received Text. That is a clear indication that the Received Text was the true text of the New Testament with roots leading back to autographa.
Perhaps your source misquoted Burgon. For, if the Peshitta was the only translation used by the Syriac churches, then why are there a number of other Syriac translations? There are the Philoxinian, the Harclean, the Palestinian, as well as the Old Syriac. The two oldest Syriac fathers who wrote back in the 4th century used some quotes from the Peshitta, but they used many other quotes from the Diatesseran (a Syriac harmony of the Gospels) and from the Old Syriac.
quote:
The Italic Bible (AD157) "Italy, France and Great Britain were once provinces of the old Roman Empire. Latin was then the language of the common people. So the first translations of the Bible in these countries were made from the Greek Vulgate into Latin. One of the first of these Latin Bibles was for the Waldenses in northern Italy, translated not later than 157 AD and was known as the Italic Version.
There are Waldensians themselves still in existence. They will tell you that their Bible was translated into French in the 13th century, and was translated from the Latin Vulgate, not from the Old Latin. A few years ago, on another board, a member managed to get a facsimile of one of the Waldensian Bible manuscripts. He did a comparison and showed us the results. His study confirmed what I found from one of the Waldensian websites, that their translation was made from the Latin Vulgate.
quote:
For really informed treatments I recommend these two websites here.
One of them shows why James White don't know what he is talking about.
One of your websites is Will Kinney's website. His work is largely based on the writings of other KJVOs. And, the problem is, they all repeat what each other has said, and they appear to do so without confirming whether what was said is true. I don't know if the other website does the same, I haven't had time to check it out closely. Sure, read these websites. Find out what they say. Then go check their sources. You will be amazed at how many times other people have been misquoted, and then more KJVO authors will reprint those misquotes.
Your other website, not the Will Kinney one, the author asks the question why the modern scholars don't accept the evidence of the early church father's quotes of the Byzantine text. Well, if these quotes prove that the Byzantine text is valid, then they also prove the modern (Alexandrian) text is valid because Irenaeus also quotes from the Alexandrian text!
And, the manuscript pictured at the top of the page is actually considered an Alexandrian manuscript! The verses he quotes with early father support in his article, if you consult the manuscript pictured, that manuscript actually supports the Alexandrian reading in those verses. And, in his chart, the first verse mentioned does not have the Byzantine reading in the text, it is in the margin. And, a number of the other verses in that chart agree with Vaticanus, not Sinaiticus. Vaticanus is also considered an Alexandrian manuscript.
I don't know where either Kinney or Pastor Brown get their information on the "Itala" version, I can't find any record of its existence. When I look through the critical text apparatus, I find a listing for the "Old Latin", but I find that it most often supports the Alexandrian, not the Byzantine, reading.
quote:
"The critical-text-position view that there is no record of any historic usage of the Received Text prior to the fifth centuly is simply wrong. There is a substantial historic record to the contrary. The text used by the churches of Jesus Christ in the first five centuries was primarily the Received Text. To be sure, there were localities which used the Alexandrian text, but they were limited largely to Alexandria and Rome." (Touch Not The Unclean Thing; David H. Sorenson; p. 82)
Do you want to know what the real truth is? While you will find scattered verses here and there in the quotes of the early Christian fathers, and you will find scattered verses that have the Byzantine readings, you won't find any evidence, of the Byzantine text as a whole, or the Recieved Text as a whole, before the 5th century. The early church, before the 5th century, did NOT use the Recieved Text as we know it today.
Look at the evidence for yourself. Don't take Will Kinney's word for it. Don't even take my word for it. Look at the evidence yourself, you'll see that the Received Text, as we know it today, as we find it in the KJV, is not found in the evidence of the early church before the 5th century.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2007 8:03:40 AM
|
|
|
amyk
Posts: 500
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Just so I know the idea - does this imply that to really study a Bible you must read/speak English? (or I'm guessing being fluent in Hebrew/Greek would be acceptable too?)
I think (I hope!) we are only talking about English versions of the Bible. I sincerely hope that nobody here thinks the Bible should not be translated into languages other than English. I'm sure that people have a preference as to which source texts are used to translate into a language other than English, though. I will be very disheartened if people do not think speakers of minority languages should be able to have a Bible in their own language to hear the gospel in the language that they can best understand! And I may become quite upset if I read that people here expect non-native English speakers to read and understand the King James Version of the Bible!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2007 1:05:30 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 247
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I sincerely hope that nobody here thinks the Bible should not be translated into languages other than English.
I think most KJVOs agree that the Bible can be translated into other languages besides English, but there are KJVOs who insist that we can use only the KJV, period. They insist that English is now the universal language, everyone can read it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2007 3:30:16 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 445
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aphobos
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
Until recently I didn't even know this was a serious teaching.
It's not a "serious" teaching. ... decidedly silly teaching
I've only bumped into it a few times... Once I saw a church web site that proudly proclaimed that all their public preaching was done with the KJV. Clearly this was important to them - I just could not figure out why.
For a while we visited a church and I sent my daughter to their Sunday School carrying her NIrV (she is 8). She told me she was told she had "the wrong Bible" because her's was "one with mistakes in it". They gave her a KJV to take home instead... I assured her that her Bible was fine. I never got into with the SS teacher, though we are not attending there now.
It's a silly thing taught seriously I'd say.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2007 5:06:03 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1961
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
Dave,
The church that I grew up in now gives out Bibles to people who come to Christ. Guess what Bible that is and why? When I attended they were KJVO but not so strongly so that the pastor would say anything. But there were members who would gossip about you if you weren't KJVO.
_____________________________
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 - 11/26/2007 5:22:29 PM
|
|
|
Aphobos
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/22/2006
Status: offline
|
GrahamCracker & Davelinde,
I once attended a church that primarily used the NIV, both in the pulpit and in the pew. A family came to the church that was enamored of KJV-Onlyism. The parents attended my Sunday school class, and it seemed that no matter what the topic was, the conversations always turned to the superiority of the AV 1611.
I spoke with them at length about the matter, showing them from history, archeology, and textual criticism that theirs was a baseless position -- less credible than that of the Flat Earth Society. They were unconvinced, but toned-down their public evangelism for the King James Version.
A few years went by and it was discovered that, behind the scenes and often in secret, this family was inviting other members of our church to their home for "dinner". In addition to food and drink, the menu included a sizable course in KJV-Only indoctrination. Videos were watched and lent-out, as well as books and pamphlets. This family was on a divine mission to "purge" the church of "New Age" Bibles.
They were confronted by the elders, harshly rebuked, and admonished to stop. Eventually, the family left the church. But a lot of damage was done in the process. And I can only wonder how this "Christian" family is undermining another congregation even as I type this.
In Him,
~Aphobos
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/26/2007 5:53:59 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1961
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
I once attended a church that used a mixture of versions. A couple and their daughter came to Sunday school and seemed real nice. Right after SS, the husband had picked out a lady for "correction" on the evils of the NIV. The pastor of my church asked him to leave. I was stunned but it was the right decision. At that time, I would not have had the guts.
_____________________________
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 - 11/27/2007 8:53:48 AM
|
|
|
amyk
Posts: 500
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
I like it when various people have different versions, and they are asked to read more than one version. I think that can help to draw out the original meaning, and I would hate to see anyone be told they have the "wrong" version of the Bible - especially a little child!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/27/2007 9:30:04 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3989
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: amyk
I think (I hope!) we are only talking about English versions of the Bible. I sincerely hope that nobody here thinks the Bible should not be translated into languages other than English. I'm sure that people have a preference as to which source texts are used to translate into a language other than English, though. I will be very disheartened if people do not think speakers of minority languages should be able to have a Bible in their own language to hear the gospel in the language that they can best understand! And I may become quite upset if I read that people here expect non-native English speakers to read and understand the King James Version of the Bible! No, but there are those that insist the ONLY valid versions of other-language bibles must be translated from the 1611 KJV.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/27/2007 12:36:31 PM
|
|
|
Aphobos
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/22/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
No, but there are those that insist the ONLY valid versions of other-language bibles must be translated from the 1611 KJV.
I would not be surprised if in 400 years there is an 'NIV-Only' movement.
~Aphobos
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 11/27/2007 10:23:07 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2416
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rosswell59
brotherbrian,
While I'm not KJV only, I do like the way it designates the second person pronoun as to whether it is singular or plural and subjective and objective cases which is indistinguishable in modern English
This is true, but not understood by most modern English speakers (even most in the KJVO crowd).
quote:
and the way it indicates the name Jehovah by LORD. This makes it more concise for study and serious discussion.
Almost all modern English versions of the bible (including the NIV) translate the name Jehovah as Lord, and the preface of each of these translations gives the rules adopted for this translation so that it can be identified when employed in the English text.
I too occasionally use the KJV when I study; I do so for two reason, one it is a good version to use in comparison to others, and two, some of my older reference materials use the Strong's numbering system, so using the KJV can be a help when using those tools. However, for a younger bible student with all new study materials i.e. ones that don't use Strong's numbers, I don't know that I would recommend that they learn middle English so that they could read and understand the KJV; I think that they would be much better served by learning Greek and Hebrew if they are going to put that much work into their studies.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/27/2007 11:49:37 PM
|
|
|
manwe
Posts: 215
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
quote:
I sincerely hope that nobody here thinks the Bible should not be translated into languages other than English.
I think most KJVOs agree that the Bible can be translated into other languages besides English, but there are KJVOs who insist that we can use only the KJV, period. They insist that English is now the universal language, everyone can read it.
Actually I think they would be okay with translations into other languages but only from the Textus Receptus (Greek) and whatever the accepted Hebrew text is, and not from the BHS or Nestle-Aland/UBS. Though I agree with you that there are such radical groups who would insist that the KJV is the only acceptable translation, period.
_____________________________
Zephaniah 3:17 reads, "The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/28/2007 6:32:33 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3989
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: manwe
Actually I think they would be okay with translations into other languages but only from the Textus Receptus (Greek) and whatever the accepted Hebrew text is, and not from the BHS or Nestle-Aland/UBS. Though I agree with you that there are such radical groups who would insist that the KJV is the only acceptable translation, period. The "accepted" Hebrew OT text is the Masoretic, commonly used in synagogues for the last 1000 years.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/28/2007 1:17:05 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2416
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: manwe
Actually I think they would be okay with translations into other languages but only from the Textus Receptus (Greek) and whatever the accepted Hebrew text is, and not from the BHS or Nestle-Aland/UBS. Though I agree with you that there are such radical groups who would insist that the KJV is the only acceptable translation, period. The "accepted" Hebrew OT text is the Masoretic, commonly used in synagogues for the last 1000 years.
Absolutely true, the BHS is the Masoretic text with a textual apparatus for reconstructing alternative readings.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
