|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/28/2007 3:44:08 PM
|
|
|
manwe
Posts: 288
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
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.
I wasn't sure which Hebrew Bible the KJVO's would accept. There are some radical KJV folk who suggest the KJV is so perfect there is no need for the biblical languages!
_____________________________
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 - 11/28/2007 5:05:58 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2155
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
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.
Regarding the KJV, I believe it translates Jehovah as LORD, with the O-R-D; upper case but in a smaller font than the letter L. Adonai, as I understand it is translated Lord, with the o-r-d in lower case.
I won't double check at this time, but the newer translations probably follow the exact same precedent.
_____________________________
Larry
Granddaughter, Skyler Lynn was born July 1, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 11/29/2007 7:03:53 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3566
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: manwe
There are some radical KJV folk who suggest the KJV is so perfect there is no need for the biblical languages! With the exception of those who believe that that Moses, Jesus et al ACTUALLY spoke Elizibethan English, Most KJVOs believe that God re-inspired the texts either with the Textus Receptus or the 1611 KJV, thus invalidating all earlier texts.
_____________________________
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 - 11/29/2007 7:06:26 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3566
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
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. My Stone Edition renders Yud Hey - Vav Hey as Ha Shem - literally "The Name."
BTW, Jehovah and Yahweh are both invalid pronounciations for Yud Hey - Vav Hey. The first because there is no J sound in Hebrew (or any other language back then) and the 2nd because Hebrew has no W sound.
Most likely pronuounciations are Yahavah or Yahoo-ah. We don't know and that is OK. I use Lord, Adonai or HaShem.
< Message edited by DaveW -- 11/29/2007 7:13:06 AM >
_____________________________
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 - 11/29/2007 9:27:00 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1610
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
My Stone Edition renders Yud Hey - Vav Hey as Ha Shem - literally "The Name."
BTW, Jehovah and Yahweh are both invalid pronounciations for Yud Hey - Vav Hey. The first because there is no J sound in Hebrew (or any other language back then) and the 2nd because Hebrew has no W sound.
Most likely pronuounciations are Yahavah or Yahoo-ah. We don't know and that is OK. I use Lord, Adonai or HaShem.
You are correct about Jehovah and (likely) Yahweh being invalid pronunciations, but incorrect about the pronunciations. In first Century and earlier Hebrew the Vav was pronounce much closer to a 'w' than it is today, and Hebrew actually did have 'j' sound, but it would not have affected the pronunciation of YHVH because it was never the sound of the Yod. In Hebrew there are 6 letters called the "Beged Kaphat" that take a special kind of dagash that originally affected the pronunciation of all of these letters. In Modern Hebrew, three of these letters still change their pronunciation when uses with or without a dagash i.e. Bet is 'b' or 'v', Kaph is 'k' or pronounce like a het (a gutteral that doesn't exist in English), and Peh is 'p' or 'f'; in biblical Hebrew the remaining three letters also had hard and soft pronunciations which included a 'zsh', 'j', and 'th'. FYI, Yehovah (as pointed in the MT) was an intentional mixing of the masorah of Adonai with the name YHVH and was a subtle reminder to vocalize it as Adonai which is a very long standing Jewish practice used to create a hedge against violating the third commandment. The stone bible represents a "double" hedge practice of very orthodox Jewish congregations who vocalize YHVH as "Ha Shem" rather than Adonai because they believe the latter to be too close to God's name. Yahweh is actually one of several good guesses, but because the letters are not consistent with normal Hebrew grammar, and because the word was never pronounced (except by the High priest) and therefore never transliterated, we do not have anyway to confirm any of these pronunciations.
Sometimes people are curious about how we know what ancient languages sounded like when we have no recordings of those languages today. Pronunciations are discovered by looking at transliterations of words from one langauge into another, usually people or place names. As an example, the name Bethlehem (in Modern Hebrew Beit Lechem) shows one of the soft pronunciations of a "Beged Kaphat" letter that no longer exists in modern Hebrew. The tah in ancient Hebrew was pronounced as a 'th' when it was used without a dagash, but as a 't' with a dagash. When we compare words with the Hebrew tah that are transliterated into other languages they consistently show the Hard/Soft pronunciations consistent the MT texts pointings. Also Ashkenazi Jews still do retain a Hard/Soft pronunciation for the tah even today; however, it is 't' and 's' for them; Bethlem for them would be pronounced as "Beis Lechem." BTW in case you are wondering, although the actual pointings (like the dagash) didn't exist in their current form until nearly the 7 century AD, the grammar rules that govern their usage did.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 11/29/2007 11:37:40 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3566
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
If you want to know what the Hebrew of 2000 years ago sounded like, listen to old Yemenite Jews. Linguists consider their pronounciations virtually unchanged from the 2nd century when they escaped to the end of the Arabian peninsula, and no one even knew they were there before 1948-9. It is somewhat close to Sephardic, but retains a sound on final Hay, the Vav is a definate V sound, there are no "th" "j" or "w" sounds. Most Jewish lingusts consider the "academic" Hebrew pronounciation system which includes these to be a Christian invention to make it sound more like Greek.
_____________________________
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 - 11/29/2007 12:17:20 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1610
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
If you want to know what the Hebrew of 2000 years ago sounded like, listen to old Yemenite Jews. Linguists consider their pronounciations virtually unchanged from the 2nd century when they escaped to the end of the Arabian peninsula, and no one even knew they were there before 1948-9. It is somewhat close to Sephardic, but retains a sound on final Hay, the Vav is a definate V sound, there are no "th" "j" or "w" sounds. Most Jewish lingusts consider the "academic" Hebrew pronounciation system which includes these to be a Christian invention to make it sound more like Greek.
I am sorry, but this is absolutely incorrect. First, academic linguists (including the Jewish academic linguists) are the ones who have done the research looking for the ancient pronunciations, and have looked at the transliterations to establish what ancient pronunciations were. The class I took in college that covered this subject was actually taught by a Jewish woman professor who had grown up in Israel while it was still under the British mandate. She was very active in the life of her Synagogue, and a very good biblical/mishnaic scholar. (Don't you think she would have known better?) Second, no academic linguist believes that the soft pronunciations of the "beged kaphat" are an invention of Christians, most of those doing research into this area of linguistics are not even Christians (many are in fact Jewish). Third, no academic linguist believes that the Yemenite Jewish community has pronounced Hebrew virtually the unchanged for 2000 years. No spoken langauge has ever remained unchanged for that long, including Hebrew. Even today the sound of spoken Hebrew langauge is changing, many speakers no longer vocalize the ayin; and the vocalized sound of the ayin is being lost.
Just a side note, many in the "academic" world are actually quite hostile towards Christianity, why do you believe that they would propagate some "Christian" invention that the evidence did not support? If we set aside scholarship and stick only to opinion, I have heard Ashkanazi Jews argue that their pronunciation was actually the original pronunciation, if the original pronunciations is left only to opinion and not scholarship, why should I take the word of the Yemenite Jews over that of the Ashkanazi Jews?
< Message edited by benelchi -- 11/29/2007 12:29:36 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 11/29/2007 1:30:15 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2155
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
No spoken langauge has ever remained unchanged for that long, including Hebrew. Even today the sound of spoken Hebrew langauge is changing, many speakers no longer vocalize the ayin; and the vocalized sound of the ayin is being lost.
Not knowing Hebrew, I can only generalize. The very best that one can say is that ancient pronunciations can still be intelligible to speakers of the modern dialects. But not unchanged.
_____________________________
Larry
Granddaughter, Skyler Lynn was born July 1, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 11/29/2007 2:16:56 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1610
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
No spoken langauge has ever remained unchanged for that long, including Hebrew. Even today the sound of spoken Hebrew langauge is changing, many speakers no longer vocalize the ayin; and the vocalized sound of the ayin is being lost.
Not knowing Hebrew, I can only generalize. The very best that one can say is that ancient pronunciations can still be intelligible to speakers of the modern dialects. But not unchanged.
This is especially true of Hebrew because it was almost a dead langauge for many centuries, and so it does not exhibit changes as extensive as other languages like Greek that have been in continuous use over the centuries. Because the langauge has been in continuous use for rabbinical studies it does reflect some changes, but far more limited than languages that were in general use. This is also why the vocabulary itself has had as few changes as it has compared to other languages; over the last 1000 years, the most rapid changes to the Hebrew language have come in the last 50 years since its adoption as the official language of Israel. It has had to adopt new vocabulary to meet the demands of a modern world, and since many of the current speakers were not original speakers, many of the nuances of other languages have begun to creep into modern Hebrew. The vocalization difference between modern Hebrew and ancient Hebrew are similar to the differences between those of English speakers from England compared to English Speakers from America; there is actually far more differences between very old English and Modern English than Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 11/30/2007 3:06:46 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2155
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
Well, you certainly appear to have a solid background linguistically. I think I can tell when someone has a pretty good grasp of language. Since we are at it, we might be getting far afield from our given topic.
I hope you don't mind if I PM you.
_____________________________
Larry
Granddaughter, Skyler Lynn was born July 1, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 11/30/2007 9:44:46 AM
|
|
|
Aphobos
Posts: 663
Joined: 8/22/2006
Status: offline
|
Would anyone here recognize this as English? These are the opening verses of Beowulf, first in English and then in English. 
HWÆT, WE GAR-DEna in geardagum,
þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon!
oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas, syððanærest wearð
feasceaft funden; he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum weorðmyndum þah,
oð þæt him æghwylc ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan; þæt wæs god cyning!
Ðæm eafera wæs æfter cenned
geong in geardum, þone God sende
folce to frofre; fyrenðearfe ongeat,
þe hie ær drugon aldorlease
lange hwile; him þæs Liffrea,
wuldres Wealdend woroldare forgeaf,
Beowulf wæs breme --- blæd wide sprang---
Scyldes eafera Scedelandum in.
Swa sceal geong guma gode gewyrcean,
fromum feohgiftumon fæder bearme,
LO, praise of the prowess of people-kings
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes,
from many a tribe, the mead-bench tore,
awing the earls. Since erst he lay
friendless, a foundling, fate repaid him
for he waxed under welkin, in wealth he throve,
till before him the folk, both far and near,
who house by the whale-path, heard his mandate,
gave him gifts: a good king he!
To him an heir was afterward born,
a son in his halls, whom heaven sent
to favor the folk, feeling their woe
that erst they had lacked an earl for leader
so long a while; the Lord endowed him,
the Wielder of Wonder, with world's renown.
Famed was this Beowulf: far flew the boast of him,
son of Scyld, in the Scandian lands.
So becomes it a youth to quit him well
with his father's friends, by fee and gift,
~Aphobos
< Message edited by Aphobos -- 11/30/2007 9:54:50 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 11/30/2007 10:48:26 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2155
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
benelchi,
I tried to send you another PM but it said your mail box is full.
_____________________________
Larry
Granddaughter, Skyler Lynn was born July 1, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/8/2007 12:01:24 AM
|
|
|
manwe
Posts: 288
Status: offline
|
Some here might be interested in a non-KJVO presentation of a case for Byzantine Priority: "New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority" by Maurice A. Robinson
now before y'all get your pants in a wad.. here is an excerpt:
From the beginning of the modern critical era in the nineteenth century the Byzantine Textform has had a questionable reputation. Associated as it was with the faulty Textus Receptus editions which stemmed from Erasmus' or Ximenes' uncritical selection of a small number of late manuscripts (hereafter MSS), scholars in general have tended to label the Byzantine form of text "late and secondary," due both to the relative age of the extant witnesses which provide the majority of its known support and to the internal quality of its readings as subjectively perceived. Yet even though the numerical base of the Byzantine Textform rests primarily among the late minuscules and uncials of the ninth century and later, the antiquity of that text reaches at least as far back as its predecessor exemplars of the late fourth and early fifth century, as reflected in MSS A/02 and W/032.
Certainly the Textus Receptus had its problems, not the least of which was its failure to reflect the Byzantine Textform in an accurate manner. But the Byzantine Textform is not the TR, nor need it be associated with the TR or those defending such in any manner. Rather, the Byzantine Textform is the form of text which is known to have predominated in the Greek-speaking world from at least the fourth century until the invention of printing in the sixteenth century. The issue which needs to be explained by any theory of NT textual criticism is the origin, rise and virtual dominance of the Byzantine Textform within the history of transmission. Various attempts have been made in this direction, postulating either the "AD 350 Byzantine recension" hypothesis of Westcott and Hort, or the current "process" view promulgated by modern schools of eclectic methodology. Yet neither of these explanations sufficiently accounts for the phenomenon, as even some of their own prophets have declared.
I think it can pertain to the discussion at hand.
_____________________________
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 - 12/8/2007 11:23:51 AM
|
|
|
vladaemyr
Posts: 1
Joined: 12/8/2007
Status: offline
|
kjv-onlyism is against doctrine and true christianity. there is no where in the bible ( no matter what version) does it say that kjv is the only true version of the Word of God. if there is I would very much like to see where it say that in scripture. if you can find that then we have something to discuss. other wise we are going against scripture on what is scripture. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/8/2007 12:02:26 PM
|
|
|
Aphobos
Posts: 663
Joined: 8/22/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: manwe
"The issue which needs to be explained by any theory of NT textual criticism is the origin, rise and virtual dominance of the Byzantine Textform within the history of transmission." (Maurice A. Robinson)
This is an important question, but I don't think that the answer is as elusive as Mr. Robinson suggests. With few exceptions, Christianity at the time was rather neatly divided between East and West. Each had it's own Pontiff, and the relationship between the two major divisions of the church was under tension both politically and theologically. In fact, these tensions would come to a head in the 11th Century, with both Popes mutually excommunicating each another.
The divide was also cultural. The church in the East was Greek-speaking, centered around the city of Byzantium. The church in the West was Latin-speaking, centered around Rome. Naturally, with different liturgical languages, the Greek texts of scripture in the East would flourish. In the West, texts of scripture were also being copied and transmitted first in classical Latin and then in the vernacular through Jerome's Textus Vulgatus.
With the ascendancy of Latin in the West, and the sustained use of Greek in the East, there is little left to mystery as to why the Byzantine text dominates the manuscript landscape. But as has often been noted in the field of textual criticism, if you copy a mistake 1,000 times, you still only have 1,000 copies of a mistake. In other words, truth is not determined by a majority (argumentum ad populum). This is precisely why the ancient manuscripts should be weighed individually and not simply counted.
In Christ,
~Aphobos
< Message edited by Aphobos -- 12/8/2007 5:08:13 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/8/2007 4:31:58 PM
|
|
|
McFatty
Posts: 725
Joined: 12/8/2007
From: Augusta, GA
Status: offline
|
First, regarding the pronunciation of YHWH/YHVH, I don't think it's as big a deal as people make it out to be. If people say "Jesus", they're mispronouncing the original name of our Savior anyway, right? How is this different from saying "Jehovah"?
Second, regarding KJV-onlyism, we know that the writers of the New Testament quoted from different Greek translations of the Hebrew OT. Since that is the case, what's wrong with reading different English translations now? Also, the purpose for the 1611 KJV's writing, as stated by the translators, was to give the common man something he could understand. Well, I don't know about you, but the common man of today (as I see it), doesn't speak the same sort of English that the common man of 1611 spoke (or spake). Do you believe that God considers the people of 1611 more worthy of a true translation they can understand perfectly than the people of 2007?
_____________________________
“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.” – Philippians 4:8
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/8/2007 6:19:24 PM
|
|
|
ladybug2008
Posts: 54
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline
|
God's Holy Word was written by God himself. "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21) The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek.
In 1881 two men, named Westcott and Hort, secretly tried to change God's Word by writing their own test to use for the Bible. They made more than 3,000 changes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/8/2007 9:48:37 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1610
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: McFatty
First, regarding the pronunciation of YHWH/YHVH, I don't think it's as big a deal as people make it out to be. If people say "Jesus", they're mispronouncing the original name of our Savior anyway, right? How is this different from saying "Jehovah"?
Absolutely agreed. What I have noticed is that often those who are most concerned with the "correct" pronunciation of YHWH often ignore the best linguistical evidence, and those who look at the evidence realize that we really don't know and all we can do is make an educated guess.
quote:
Second, regarding KJV-onlyism, we know that the writers of the New Testament quoted from different Greek translations of the Hebrew OT. Since that is the case, what's wrong with reading different English translations now? Also, the purpose for the 1611 KJV's writing, as stated by the translators, was to give the common man something he could understand. Well, I don't know about you, but the common man of today (as I see it), doesn't speak the same sort of English that the common man of 1611 spoke (or spake). Do you believe that God considers the people of 1611 more worthy of a true translation they can understand perfectly than the people of 2007?
Again, I agree with you. Any English speaking student should always use multiple English versions, even those who can read the text in its original languages. Looking at multiple versions makes it much easier to identify textual difficulties i.e. when different versions don't agree with one another we have the opportunity to investigate why the translations diverged. I do think it is important to realize the each translation has its own strengths and weaknesses and we should understand what those are before we place our trust in a particular translation; most English translations are a good representation of the original texts, but a few diverge so significantly that they should not be trusted.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/8/2007 10:12:48 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2155
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ladybug2008
God's Holy Word was written by God himself. "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21) The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek.
In 1881 two men, named Westcott and Hort, secretly tried to change God's Word by writing their own test to use for the Bible. They made more than 3,000 changes.
Not so.
_____________________________
Larry
Granddaughter, Skyler Lynn was born July 1, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/9/2007 3:41:43 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 224
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Second, regarding KJV-onlyism, we know that the writers of the New Testament quoted from different Greek translations of the Hebrew OT.
It wasn't so much that they quoted from different Greek translations of the OT, it was more that they quoted from the LXX and the Hebrew OT. They quoted both as the word of God. Paul knew of both versions of the OT, yet he still wrote "ALL scripture was given by inspiration of God......"
For me, that is scriptural proof that God allows His word to be preserved in slightly differing versions.
quote:
In 1881 two men, named Westcott and Hort, secretly tried to change God's Word by writing their own test to use for the Bible. They made more than 3,000 changes.
They did not write their own text. They simply did textual criticism on the avaialable evidence, just as Erasmus, Stevens, and Beza did several hundred years before them. And, just as the KJV translators did!
Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that the KJV translators did not follow any one printed Greek New Testament. They actually compared at least 4 different printed GNT plus the Latin Vulgate. And, they picked and chose from amongst those to make a translation that differs from every other edition of the Bible, whether in original languages, or in translations.
Now, considering that the Bible itself shows us that God accepts various Bible versions, as seen in the OT quotes in the NT - some of which are from the LXX, some from the Hebrew Masoretic text as we know it, and some may be from other Hebrew and Greek sources; plus, Scripture teaches that "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God...."; how can anyone continue to insist that only the KJV is the true word of God?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/11/2007 1:26:00 AM
|
|
|
Aphobos
Posts: 663
Joined: 8/22/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that the KJV translators did not follow any one printed Greek New Testament. They actually compared at least 4 different printed GNT plus the Latin Vulgate. And, they picked and chose from amongst those to make a translation that differs from every other edition of the Bible, whether in original languages, or in translations.
What's even more interesting to me is that the KJV translators were instructed to preserve the wording of the Bishop's Bible whenever possible -- an English translation that preceeded the KJV by almost half a century. The 1572 revision of the Bishop's Bible was the stated basis of the AV 1611. In fact, the first rule given by James the First concerning the (KJV) translation was this: "The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, is to be followed and as little altered as the original permits." Thus, there were already precommitments to an existing English translation.
Parenthetically, the main purpose of the Bishops Bible was to overthrow the Geneva Bible. The Church of England could not stand the Geneva Bible, with its "sedicious" Calvinistic notes and cross-references. And so its translators were guided as much by theological angst as they were by textual and linguistic considerations.
The Bishops Bible failed in its primary goal, and the Geneva Bible continued to be the most popular English translation in the world for generations. The Geneva Bible was the first Bible taken to America aboard the Mayflower. It was the Bible upon which early American government was established. The King James Bible, however, eventually succeeded where the Bishops Bible failed.
Using a theologically motivated translation as its basis, and being instructed not to deviate from it unless the original language absolutely demanded it, one must wonder: Were the KJV translators influenced more by published Greek New Testaments (and the extant manuscripts from which they were made)? Or were they swayed more by devotion to an existing English translation, which itself was the product of anti-Calvinist sentiment?
~Aphobos
< Message edited by Aphobos -- 12/11/2007 11:28:15 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/12/2007 4:39:52 PM
|
|
|
harpn4jesus
Posts: 1
Joined: 12/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1love1God1way
The KJV did not come directly from the original texts. They were translated from one language to another. Then from that new one, translated back, and from this third one translated into the KJV.
I don't see how any bible can be considered the only true Bible, especially one that is a translation of what was actually originally written. If we follow this logic, the only true Bible is the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts (the originals, not the copies that were made). These are the only ones that have what the author said perfectly.
And still then, the Bible, although infallible, is not inerrant. So is there really any true Bible?
Im jus a new member on here as of today. 68yrs young and 40yrs.trying to do right with God.This subject has been a lontime study for me also.From my latest knowledge the Jewish people even tho they do not believe christ has come at all are Gods chosen ones.And, they still worship on Saturday which I know now for sure is the day to worship Jesus .It is the 7th day of the week!Our calenders prove that!So I think that if we all want to find out what is the true reading we should all look into the Jewish Bible and follow their beliefs.It has always bothered me about why most all the churches follow what Constine changed back in the Romans times the day that God wants us all to worship HIM?He actually changed the worship day to Sunday, and about every1 has followed his idea ever since. Isn't it in God's commandents in the KJV?Remember The Sabbath Day an keep it Holy?I also have discovered that if the KJV had all the original scriptures printed it would be so big we cldnt pick it up in the english translations.But, the meaning to His Commandments haven't changed.And another thing ,why is the newest Bibles out now so small?And, what about where God says in last page of Revelations about changing 1 word or taking away ? 1 word can sure change the entire meaning of the whole sentence for sure.Even a comma or a period or a ? can change the meaning.satan has many tricks up His sleeve in these last days 4 sure to try and deceive us all. Hope i didnt writ to much here..lol God Bless you'all
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/12/2007 5:42:33 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2155
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: harpn4jesus
This subject has been a lontime study for me also.From my latest knowledge the Jewish people even tho they do not believe christ has come at all are Gods chosen ones.And, they still worship on Saturday which I know now for sure is the day to worship Jesus .It is the 7th day of the week!Our calenders prove that!So I think that if we all want to find out what is the true reading we should all look into the Jewish Bible and follow their beliefs.It has always bothered me about why most all the churches follow what Constine changed back in the Romans times the day that God wants us all to worship HIM?He actually changed the worship day to Sunday,...
Your comment contains an off topic tangent. So my comment will be brief. There may be a one-stop thread already dedicated to it. I don't know. If you want to pursue this, I'll discuss it with you in another thread, you can either start one or find one already available.
Anyway, I would suggest that Constantine, the Catholics and the popes get a lot of credit for things they didn't do. Anyway, a dedicated holy day of the week is not a NT teaching. It is OT and therefore, the day wasn't changed by the Catholics. It was eliminated.
_____________________________
Larry
Granddaughter, Skyler Lynn was born July 1, 2008.
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
