RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Bible



Message

DaveW -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (4/10/2006 6:51:40 AM)

quote:

Original: Kath

We have what we call a One Stop thread on the issue of the KJ version.

You will find it here LINK

Wow. This is now an official "One Stop" thread!



Olympian -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (4/10/2006 10:43:13 AM)

Perhaps one need not be an adamant KJVO person but in one sense there are benefits of the KJV not found in other translations. One major benefit is the use of the thee, thy, thou, ye, etc. The use of these word help to distinguish between the singular "you" and the plural "you" which can be difficult to discern with just the use of "you" unless you read the Greek text, which incedentally, Grechem Machen wrote a Greek Grammar in the 20's and uses thee and thou to differentiate between you (sing) and you (plural), and this is pretty helpful.

Here are a couple of examples:

KJV John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

NAU John 3:7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

If you read the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus you'll see that at times Jesus says to Nick "I say to you (sing)...You (plural)....." In the modern translations one easily misses this unless they read the Greek or check the KJV. It reveals some interesting implications from Jesus and Nick's conversation.

KJV 1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

NAU 1 Corinthians 3:16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

Here, Paul is telling everyone, that is the people of God, they are the temple of God, there are other places where he does say the individual is a temple of the Holy Spirit, but here, unless one pays close attention to the context, one might miss the fact that the community of faith, the people of God, the body of Christ as a whole is the temple of God.

These are just a couple benefits of the use of thee's and thy's and ye's and such.



DaveW -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (4/10/2006 12:28:11 PM)

Olympian, you miss it. There is a difference between "thee" and "you" but it is not singlular or plural. While lost in modern English, the French retain a difference between a familiar "you" and a formal "you. " The words are tu and vou but I do not remember which is which. It is the same in Elizebethan English. Thee and its various forms are a familiar you, used only with family members and close friends; and you was more formal for people you were not that close to.

I find it interesting that the translation notes for the NASB (pre-update) said they retained the Thees and Thous when referencing Diety to give proper respect and distance. Over the centuries those words reverted from being close and intimate to being very formal.



Olympian -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (4/10/2006 1:15:45 PM)

How else besides context or reading the Greek (which adamant KJVO people say is no longer necessary or that the KJV supercedes the Greek) might one distingusih between "you" singular and "you" plural?

KJV John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

NAU John 3:7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

In the KJV example, thee is singular and ye is the plural. In the NAS example one might not notice the difference.

To get the plural sense of "you" we need either "you all" or the contraction "y'all." Perhaps we need a translation with a southern accent:

NASSouthern "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'Y'all must be born again.'"

It's not a big deal really, just thought I'd point it out.



phyl2 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/10/2006 1:31:22 PM)

quote:

Do you realize you are in denial of the word of God? ". . . Moses wrote . . . the words of the LORD, . . ." -- Exodus 24:4. Even Jesus said of Moses, "he wrote of me." -- John 5:46.


37818 - I think the centuries that cjwpastor was referring to were the centuries between Adam and Moses.



phyl2 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/10/2006 1:40:29 PM)

quote:

Olympian, you miss it. There is a difference between "thee" and "you" but it is not singlular or plural. While lost in modern English, the French retain a difference between a familiar "you" and a formal "you. " The words are tu and vou but I do not remember which is which.


No, the "thee"s and "you"s indicate number, not familiarity and formality. At least, when the KJV was translated. But, nowadays, there are those who use them to indicate the difference between a familiar "you" and a formal "you". This does sometimes cause a little confusion between those who know the different words indicate number, and those who believe they indicate familiarity.

The NASB originally did something that I wish they had continued to do. They had a little superscript "s" or "p" by the "you" to indicate number. It would be nice if the publishers of our Bibles would renew that practice, and also in the cases where some translations use a singular "they".

FYI, if I remember correctly from my high school French, "tu" is informal and "vous" is formal.



DaveW -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (4/10/2006 3:32:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olympian

How else besides context or reading the Greek (which adamant KJVO people say is no longer necessary or that the KJV supercedes the Greek) might one distingusih between "you" singular and "you" plural?

KJV John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

NAU John 3:7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

In the KJV example, thee is singular and ye is the plural. In the NAS example one might not notice the difference.
I would think both are singular. Strongs has soi for thee and humas for Ye. I do not know greek at all but Jesus was only talking to one person - Nicodemus - at the time.



DaveW -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (4/10/2006 3:43:24 PM)

Thank God for E-sword!

In the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament e-sword has a series of numbers and letters to indicate case, tense, voice, singular, plural, etc. Both are 2nd person SINGULAR.



Olympian -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (4/10/2006 6:37:58 PM)

Hmm...the UBS4th has soi (you singular) and humas (you plural) (Bible programs can be wrong sometimes)

John does a similar thing in verses 11 and 12.

While Jesus is only talking to Nicodemus in this passage, John often uses individuals representing groups in this case Nick represents the Jewish leadership.



Saved34 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (4/10/2006 7:20:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveW

Thank God for E-sword!

In the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament e-sword has a series of numbers and letters to indicate case, tense, voice, singular, plural, etc. Both are 2nd person SINGULAR.
Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament? [:@]. Grrrr



phyl2 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (4/11/2006 12:30:50 AM)

quote:

In the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament e-sword has a series of numbers and letters to indicate case, tense, voice, singular, plural, etc. Both are 2nd person SINGULAR.


Appears E - sword screwed up. I have a copy of the Wescott-Hort Greek New Testament and it has you singular and then you plural.

Saved34 - no need to growl at the Wescott Hort Greek New Testament, it has the correct reading. There are no variants listed for this verse.



cjwpastor -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (4/11/2006 8:19:57 AM)

Ezra,

In another thread about the curse in Rev. 22:18-19, I asked you this question:

quote:

Ezra,
Out of curiousity, do you believe that the "adding to" or "taking away" from Scripture would include modern translations of the Bible, or anything other than the KJV?



And you responded by saying:

quote:

You know what they say about "curiosity". However, you would be correct in concluding that modern bible translations based upon critical and/or eclectic texts (as opposed to all Reformation Bibles including the KJV) do indeed add to and substract from the Word of God. Furthermore, they also pervert the meaning of many Scriptures.


I am wondering how you reconcile your theology with reality, because to me, it appears the two are not intersecting - and if they ARE intersecting, then the result is a very bold and arrogant judgment, I think.

If the curse in Revelation applies to the whole Bible, as you believe it does, and modern translations are guilty of breaking this command then they are thereby subject to this curse. If what you say is true, and the KJV is the only "true and perfect" Word of God, then we can assume that all who read it and how "produce" it are safe from this curse. All others, like myself (because I am a consumer of these "perverted Scriptures" and even promote them in my church) are subject to this curse. Of these people though, I don't know a single person who has suffered the plagues desribed by the curse. Do you?

From here I see two options. One, if we do not see visible evidence of the curse in affect, we could conclude that the curse is bogus. I don't think it is, nor do I think you do. The other option is you could say that this plague and curse will take affect in the afterlife. And this is what I meant by saying you could be making a very bold and arrogant claim. Are you willing to say, simply for the sake of upholding your beloved translation, that all who produce, buy, sell, read and promote other versions than the KJV that God will "take away that person's share in the tree of life and in the holy city"? (Rev. 22:19).

Chad



Happy_Hubby -> Other language Bibles (4/11/2006 8:44:25 AM)

What about Spanish Bibles or any other Bibles in other languages? How do the KJV only supporters feel about these? Should they be translations of the KJV into Spanish or whatever? Or should they be translations of Greek/Hebrew manusripts into Spanish?



cjwpastor -> RE: Other language Bibles (4/11/2006 8:51:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Happy_Hubby

What about Spanish Bibles or any other Bibles in other languages? How do the KJV only supporters feel about these? Should they be translations of the KJV into Spanish or whatever? Or should they be translations of Greek/Hebrew manusripts into Spanish?



That is a great question, Happy. Funny how us westerners get so caught up in the english language or in our own culture that we forget there is a whole world out there, much of which doesn't speak our language. Are they "spiritually crippled" as the KJVO camp would have us believe because they aren't reading the KJV of 1611 in the king's english?

CHad



apologist -> RE: Other language Bibles (4/11/2006 9:54:25 AM)

what is interesting is that the writers of the KJV took from the commentary of the RCC Bibles. This in itself proves that these men, took the commentary and translation of other Bibles and therefore did not offer anything deeper or more clear than what was already given.

In other words, it is both a copy of previous texts after the original, and has newer and different interpretation of verses never seen in the previous 1600 years.

how can something that came so long after the original texts were translated, by those who knew how to speak the language fluently and lived in the times of the language with all of its nuances and meanings, get it correct?

the language of peoples changes constantly.

if you were to ask someone just 15 years ago, what the word "sick" meant, they would say, ill, infirm etc...

if you were to ask someone today, you would also get the definition of "cool, beautiful etc"...

i will stick with the earliest translations, of which we know are correct. There were over 600 translations for the people of the world, from one interpretation of one church previous to the KJV and previous to the reformers Bible translations when they decided as men to take out 7 books.



Olympian -> RE: Other language Bibles (4/11/2006 10:22:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Happy_Hubby

What about Spanish Bibles or any other Bibles in other languages? How do the KJV only supporters feel about these? Should they be translations of the KJV into Spanish or whatever? Or should they be translations of Greek/Hebrew manusripts into Spanish?



The KJVO proponant would argue that the foreign language bibles would use the same Greek and Hebrew text as was used by the KJV - the Textus Receptus (Greek) for the NT and the Mosoretic Text (Hebrew) for the OT.

I suppose the hardline KJVO people would just as soon prefer to translate straight from the KJV since they believe it supercedes the TR and the MT.



rcjames -> RE: Other language Bibles (4/11/2006 10:41:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olympian

The KJVO proponant would argue that the foreign language bibles would use the same Greek and Hebrew text as was used by the KJV - the Textus Receptus (Greek) for the NT and the Mosoretic Text (Hebrew) for the OT.

I suppose the hardline KJVO people would just as soon prefer to translate straight from the KJV since they believe it supercedes the TR and the MT.


There is a version in Spanish called "Antiqua" or antique or old version. The proponents of that version are nearly as hardline as the KJVO people. Even though it is most difficult to read because of the syntax, and outdated words that are used.

Thanks
RC



laura... -> RE: Other language Bibles (4/11/2006 10:54:47 AM)

I can clearly remember a poster from several years back who insisted that the only true bible was in Japanese. He insisted that all Christians must learn Japanese in order to have access to the true gospel of Jesus Christ.



phyl2 -> RE: Other language Bibles (4/11/2006 1:18:29 PM)

quote:

You know what they say about "curiosity". However, you would be correct in concluding that modern bible translations based upon critical and/or eclectic texts (as opposed to all Reformation Bibles including the KJV) do indeed add to and substract from the Word of God. Furthermore, they also pervert the meaning of many Scriptures.


But, how can we know that the KJV is the correct standard, and does not itself have additions or subtractions?

If we had two copies of a work of art, say the Mona Lisa, that were made hundreds of years after the original painting, how would we determine which copy was the better copy? Would it be right to just say that copy A was the best copy, and copy B was obviously a perversion since it differs somewhat from copy A? Of course that wouldn't be right. You would take both copies and compare them with the original.

Now, I know you will say that we don't have the original documents. But, we still can check the evidence. The primary evidence are the available manuscripts. But, at this time, I'd like to mention another level of evidence that would speak more to this particular part of the discussion - additions and subtractions to scripture. If we would examine all the scriptural quotes in the writings of the early Christian writers, we would find that not one single Christian writer quoted from a text that was word for word exactly like the KJV. Put this fact together with the fact that there are absolutely no manuscritps which match word for word with the text of the KJV, we know at least this much: the KJV is NOT the standard to use when determining whether a translation or version has additions or subtractions.

If a person would check the OT quotes found in the NT, that person would find out that some quotes are taken from the Hebrew OT scriptures and some quotes are taken from the Greek OT translation. We have the same problem with the OT scriptures. When you compare the Hebrew scriptures with the Greek translation, you find that here again, there are textual differences. Although some differences come from the fact that exact translation is difficult and sometimes impossible, it is very clear that a number of the differences come from textual variants, not from translation difficulties. And, the NT writers sometimes chose to quote these verses with their textual variants.

I do not believe that this warning refers to textual variants or specific words, because we can see that textual variation based on copyist errors - the pre 15th century version of printers errors - has always been with us. I believe this verse refers more to the additions of teachings and interpretations such as what the scribes and Pharisees were guilty of.

The accusation of perverting the meaning of many scriptures is a very subjective one. Every translation will have a bias in favor of those who did the translation. The KJV has a strong Anglican bias in keeping with the Anglican theology of their day. Those who appreciate the Tyndale and Geneva translations have provided examples of this. This is true of any translation. Paul taught that there is some amount of leeway in what we believe and that we ought to offer each other grace in those areas. But, I don't know of any major Christian translation that has actually perverted scriptures to bring a meaning that is contrary to traditional Christian belief.



phyl2 -> RE: Other language Bibles (4/11/2006 1:26:16 PM)

quote:

What about Spanish Bibles or any other Bibles in other languages? How do the KJV only supporters feel about these? Should they be translations of the KJV into Spanish or whatever? Or should they be translations of Greek/Hebrew manusripts into Spanish?


They differ. The strictest KJVOs believe that English is now a universal language and therefore there should be no problem with everyong being limited to the KJV only in English.

There are other groups which believe that translations are allowed to be made, but only from the English KJV, which would mean that those groups may only have a secondary translation.

Then there are other groups which believe that translations are allowed from the Reformation era texts. When it is pointed out that some of these texts have some of the same variants found in modern translations, these KJVOs are strangely silent.



apologist -> RE: Other language Bibles (4/11/2006 3:06:51 PM)

what is interesting is that the writers of the KJV took from the commentary of the RCC Bibles. This in itself proves that these men, took the commentary and translation of other Bibles and therefore did not offer anything deeper or more clear than what was already given.

In other words, it is both a copy of previous texts after the original, and has newer and different interpretation of verses never seen in the previous 1600 years.

how can something that came so long after the original texts were translated, by those who knew how to speak the language fluently and lived in the times of the language with all of its nuances and meanings, get it correct?

the language of peoples changes constantly.

if you were to ask someone just 15 years ago, what the word "sick" meant, they would say, ill, infirm etc...

if you were to ask someone today, you would also get the definition of "cool, beautiful etc"...

i will stick with the earliest translations, of which we know are correct. There were over 600 translations for the people of the world, from one interpretation of one church previous to the KJV and previous to the reformers Bible translations when they decided as men to take out 7 books.



Friarbob -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (4/11/2006 4:10:35 PM)

I have made a similar post like this one on several KJVO debate sites. so far I have not one KJVO adherent aNswer my question/challenge. I am curious to see iF again I get no response from the KJVO crowd. Now here is my question/challenge:
Instead of cursing the darkness,(new tranlations), why don't you folks sponsor a new tranlation based on the TR manuscripts thereby lighting a candle to shed some light. I would be interested in seeing the resulting translation since at present I am a KJV preferred but not a KJVO as I stated previously on this thread I will contine to read the modern translations along with the KJV. A secomd question is this: Is the reason I get no response in the last 3 months to this question becaue there are no reputable hebrew / greek scholars in you camp that could do a new translation? Any KJVO responses are welcome. Until or if a new TR translation comes out I will continue to read my modern translations along with my KJV.



apologist -> RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread (4/11/2006 6:24:18 PM)

why do we have to try to reinvent it again?

why don't we just use the RCC edition which was the first translation for the world, all 600 of them? lol



PeterAV -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/13/2006 1:57:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: died4meNu

Oh, the old case of Dr. Mollenkott being a lesbian.

Well from what I read and looked into, she was an English professor who was on the team in order to help with the flow of the English language, and to help overlook how sentences were structured etc.

When they found out that she was an admitted Lesbian (they did not know from the start), she was immeadiately dismissed from the project. She had no say or factor in the translating or downplaying anything, including homosexuality. The NIV can only "downgrade" homosexuality when you compare it to the KJV which isn't the standard anyways....I'd like to hear more on why it waters down this issue.

If you really want to dig into this, then you should look into King James. Isn't true that he was bisexual? From my knowledge he was....just a thought here: If he was, then you should definitely avoid that Bible as well, considering he had everything to do with what it said, they even made a dedication to him in the opening of the original Bible's. Don't you think he would have more power than an English professor?
God Bless

Well your scholarship is quite void of the facts.
They knew she was a lesbian from the start.Her name is on the editor's and contributor's list in the first issue.

NIV's Vurginia Mollencott jabs,"My lesbianism has always been a part of me."
Now the NIV makes changes to the Bible.
Now the NIV censures only criminal offences like prostitution and violent gang rape,not sincere homosexuals.
NIV/NASB et al.
Male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
1 Cor.6:9
KJB has effeminite

NIV?NASB et al.
shrine prostitutes
Deut.23:17
1 Kings 15:12,22:46
2 Kings 23:7

King James uses
sodomites
*******
Even Virginai admits that her efforts were right to the end of the work.
She writes;
Dear Michael Penfold;
I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and revised,although I was never free to attend the summer sessions even when I was invited to do so.
...I was never removed sacked,or made redundent from my work on the NIV;If I were,my name would not appear on the list sent out by the IBS.

Dr.Palmer suspected that I was a lesbian while I was working on the NIV;
it was information that I kept private at that time.
*******
Plus she was caught flirting with the girls on campus way back in the 50's
*******
And the thing about King James being a Homosexual is ludicrous.It is a smear by certain men that were jealous of him and never said anything until years after he was dead.

If you want an accurate account of the life of King James,you can read
King James the VI of Scotland & The I Of England
Unjustly Accused? By Stephen A. Coston SR.
You have been reading the lies instead of the facts.

King James was a very godly man and wrote much about the Bible,including the evils of tobacco.
Your study is incomplete.
Check it out and see.
In Awe Of THy Word has a bit of info on him and his works as well.

PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.



PeterAV -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (4/13/2006 2:06:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saved34

And wow! I didn't know King James was a consultant or a translator on the KJV. [sm=icon_smile_roll.gif] GUESS YOU LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERY DAY.

This is simply not the case at all.But I think you know that by your cute comments with the smile.I hope.


quote:


But I believe the NIV fails to deliver doctrinaly. In some instances like 1Timothy 3:16, which in the NIV loses it's entire meaning. If you've never read that same verse in the King James, you would have no idea that the NIV basically BUTCHERS the deity of Christ in this verse.

I personally trust and rest in the KJV as the premiere english language Bible. If you don't, that's fine. I'm not against ALL other english translations, but a great many of them are simply inferior to the KJV, and others were created simply to please this modernist, toe tickling, back scratching, lovey dovey, non hell fire preaching, sermonette delivering crowd.

Yes.amen to that.

PeterAV
Holy Bible
There is only one.



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI