|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/12/2007 7:54:00 PM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 10648
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
CLICK HERE to go to the one stop thread on the Sabbath. Let's keep this thread on the topic of KJV Only.
Thanks!
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 - 12/13/2007 9:41:39 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1466
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
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.
Which Jewish translation? The early translations like the LLX which translated the messianic passages much clearer, or those subsequent to Christianity which often mis-translate some of the messianic passages? I have several Jewish translations on my bookshelf, and I often use them in my studies, but they are no better than most other good translations and some of the messianic passages contained in Jewish versions are poorly translated. A more important point is that none of the major Jewish translations contain the NT!!! There a few messianic Jewish translations that do include the NT, but these are really paraphrases with Jewish names for people, places, and festivals substituted for the traditional ones, and sometimes this is done even when the scholarship is unclear. Although I would typically agree with the messianic interpretation, I personally don't believe it is a good idea to change the biblical text to make "clearer" then the original text was; those kind of amendments belong in commentaries, not the bible (BTW the NIV, which I use most often, makes similar types of changes to the text for different reasons and it bugs me just as much). Studying the Jewish culture (and especially the first century Jewish culture) is invaluable to understanding the Christianity of the NT; however, in the NT we are given many examples of the failings of Jewish theology; clearly not everything done by the the Jewish people was something we were called to emulate. Remember most of Judaism does not even accept Jesus as the Messiah.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/29/2007 12:34:37 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 202
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
KJV ONLY
there is no debate
Actually, that is a false teaching that is not scriptural. In fact, it is actually contrary to scripture, since God shows us that He does not limit His word to one particular version. In the New Testament, He guided the NT writers to quote from both the Hebrew scriptures AND the ancient Greek translation, which differs from the Hebrew scriptures somewhat.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/30/2007 9:44:03 PM
|
|
|
Okami
Posts: 1024
Joined: 9/26/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
But, at least the KJV is based on the majority texts.
You can see the difference in the dragon verse in Rev. The minority based Bibles say "dragon was on the sand" but the majority says "I was on the sand"
Obviously something is wrong.
I can post pics of the actual texts , but with no flash photography and being fuzzy, it's pretty unreadable.
But, needless to say, when new old texts are found, they match the majority rather than the minority which most Bibles nowadays are based from.
But at least most are close enough to get a general idea if you simply want to compare against others.
_____________________________
My ancestors were humans. Sorry to hear about yours.
Bible answer men the way it should be done.
No shows focused on their books, their guests books, nor religion bashing. Just calls and answers.
http://www.csnradio.com/tema
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/31/2007 12:32:35 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 202
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
But, needless to say, when new old texts are found, they match the majority rather than the minority which most Bibles nowadays are based from.
I know that's what some KJVO literature says, but all the more recently found older manuscripts that I'm aware of, when I've checked the variants, they have more closely matched the "minority" text.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/31/2007 5:04:22 PM
|
|
|
Aphobos
Posts: 669
Joined: 8/22/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Okami
But, at least the KJV is based on the majority texts.
This is a form of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. It is an appeal to the majority in order to establish veracity. In this case, it's a majority of manuscripts rather than persons. But it's a fallacy nonetheless.
Truth is not determined by a majority. If the vast majority of people believe a lie, it does not somehow become true. If scribes copy an error 10,000 times, it does not suddenly become correct. And that is what the so-called "majority text" argument represents -- a logical fallacy.
The Byzantine family is an excellent manuscript tradition. But, just as the other text families (Alexandrian, Caeserean, Western, etc.), it is not without its share of problems and errors. It just happens to be the one that was copied most due to it's association with the Greek-speaking church.
~Aphobos
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 12/31/2007 5:14:49 PM
|
|
|
BlackCapnHarlock
Posts: 383
Joined: 8/20/2005
Status: offline
|
The KJV is a great translation, however I am thinking of getting an NLT . .. don't need the old english language to feel or be HOLY in GOD's eye sight.
_____________________________
Ezekiel 16:6 Eze 16:6 And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/1/2008 4:04:46 AM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1981
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is a form of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. It is an appeal to the majority in order to establish veracity. In this case, it's a majority of manuscripts rather than persons. But it's a fallacy nonetheless....Truth is not determined by a majority
aphobos:
The issue is not "truth" but the true reading of a Scripture or Scriptures. And the abundance of witnesses supporting a particular reading testifies to the genuineness of that reading, particular when it is found at various locations and different periods of history.
Therefore what you have stated above is itself a fallacy. What is found in the majority of manuscripts is the true text of Scripture, and what is found in the minority is not.
The KJV (and all Reformation Bibles) are supported by the Majority Text in Greek and the Masoretic or Traditional Text in Hebrew. This is an objective fact. The patrsitic quotations are also preponderantly from the Majority Text.
Whether you wish to accept the spurious readings of the minority text is your choice. Many have fallen for the argument that the most ancient manuscripts (the minority text) are "the best", when in fact they are the worst.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/1/2008 4:08:38 AM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1981
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BlackCapnHarlock
The KJV is a great translation, however I am thinking of getting an NLT . .. don't need the old english language to feel or be HOLY in GOD's eye sight.
Here's another fallacy. The old English language is hardly the issue. The real issue is which translation is the most faithful and reliable. Modern versions are neither faithful nor reliable, although they do receive a lot of propaganda.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/1/2008 9:32:51 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 202
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
The issue is not "truth" but the true reading of a Scripture or Scriptures.
The true reading of Scripture IS the truth! And, Aphobos is right, if a non-original reading is copied more times than the original reading, that does not make it the correct reading - even if it is found "at various locations" or "different periods of history".
It is very interesting that when the majority reading is not the KJV reading, even though it is "found at various locations and different periods of history", suddenly this argument means absolutley nothing and the reading is discarded and distrusted by the KJVOs.
And, the Byzantine readings are not necessarily as widespread as we are led to believe. In truth, after the 4th or 6th century, the Greek manuscripts came from a rather restricted area, while the rest of the world read God's word in translations. And, in fact, there are more manuscripts of these ancient translations than there are Greek manuscripts - so the "majority readings" may not be as majority as we think. The problem is translations issues can make a text reading cloudy - does a verse read this way because of the way the translator translated it, or does it read this way because there was a different Greek word in the manuscript being translated.
It is another fact that the Greek manuscripts from the restricted Greek-speaking area differ quite a bit from the earlier widespread Greek manuscripts. And, we also know that if a church official in the eastern (Greek-speaking) church edited the text, the followers of that part of the church do not have a problem with that.
Put these two facts together, it is easy to see how some readings may have come to be in an apparant majority, when in fact they were not original.
quote:
What is found in the majority of manuscripts is the true text of Scripture, and what is found in the minority is not.
Right, Ezra, EXCEPT those readings in the KJV which are NOT found in the majority text - then we are supposed to throw out that rule. Right?
quote:
The real issue is which translation is the most faithful and reliable. Modern versions are neither faithful nor reliable, although they do receive a lot of propaganda.
Are you talking strictly translational issues here Ezra? Because every time I see a KJVO claim of bad translation in the modern translations, I check it out myself, and I've found the modern translations to be accurately translated a very high percentage of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/3/2008 9:19:08 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1466
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
where is the verse and why is it removed
Good question, what have you done to find the answer?
Why does the KJV have reject books from the cannon that other versions incorporate?
What is the bases for the cannon of scripture we have, and why?
Why did the translators of different versions choose the textual variants that they used for their translation?
What are the arguments for the accuracy of each of the different textual variants?
These are just a few of the questions that should be asked before deciding that one version of the bible is "better" than all the rest, and there are many more questions that can and should be asked.
If your answer eludes to the idea that somehow the KJV translators were more inspired than the translator of other versions of the bible, what evidence can you offer in support of that claim?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/3/2008 10:09:13 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2321
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mr.scripture
i do not know where in the KJV where it tells me
that the bible is not inspired by GOD
2 timothy 3:16 tells me that:
all scripture is given by inspiration of GOD........
So where in the NIV or the NASB does it say that they are not inspired? Why suggest that the KJV is the only inspired version in English? I know of a pastor who believes that the KJV is the only English version approved by God.
quote:
look for yourself and compare other translations to the KJV
scriptures such as:
colossians 1:14......why is " through his blood " removed
Did the newer versions remove "blood" or did the KJV add "blood"? If such an agenda exists to detract from "the blood of Christ," why did they not remove it from all places where the word is located?
The newer versions do not have it in Col. 1:14 because the Greek manusripts upon which they are based did not contain it. That's all. No agenda. No conspiracy. No secret motives. No Satanic inspiration or other such claptrap.
quote:
matthew 18:11 where is the verse and why is it removed
Why indeed? It must be demons in the publishing office. My NET Bible says: "This verse...is almost certainly not in the original. The present translation follows the standard critical Greek texts in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed in a number of other modern translations." (NET Bible, page 1766, First Beta Edition.) http://www.netbible.com
quote:
1 timothy 16:22 why is " in christ " removed
Help me out here. There are certainly not 16 chapters in 1 Timothy. If you inadvertently meant to say chapter 6, there are only 21 verses in chapter 6.
quote:
revelations 22:18 and 2 timothy 3:16 see what these scripture tell you
First of all, there is no such book as "revelations." I assume you mean Revelation, not revelations--plural. That is a common error.
The verse you cited from Rev. warns not to ADD to the book. If you want to extend the warning to the entire 66 books (as opposed to Revelation, which contextually is what it is referring to), note that the condemnation is for adding. If the KJV translators were in error, the plague would have been upon THEM for adding, would it not?
I assume that you really wanted to cite verse 19 and not verse 18.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 1/4/2008 9:10:11 AM >
_____________________________
Larry
Why is it when we talk to God we're said to be praying -
but when God talks to us, we're schizophrenic.----Lily Tomlin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/4/2008 1:26:35 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 202
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
i believe in the Bible from cover to cover
i believe it is the inspired word of GOD
i believe it is also the complete word of God and that there is no
error in it
So do I.
quote:
look for yourself and compare other translations to the KJV
Why compare to the KJV? What is the reason? What makes you think the KJV is the standard for comparison?
In the history of the Bible, the KJV came pretty late. Shouldn't we see what all the Biblical manuscripts throughout history have read? If we do that, we find that there is not even one single manuscript that matches the KJV. Not even one! There are some pretty signficant differences from all of them. If the KJV is the only true Bible, I can't believe God will leave His Church without the true word of God for 1600 years.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/4/2008 9:18:26 PM
|
|
|
TJO5
Posts: 147
Joined: 12/1/2007
Status: offline
|
In this debate I notice that imortance is given to the antiquity of texts and I was wondering if anyone has an opinion on the bible translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls,as the texts are supposedly far older than any other texts?
Dead Sea Scrolls Bible
Yours in Christ,
T.J.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/4/2008 9:35:51 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2321
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TJO5
In this debate I notice that imortance is given to the antiquity of texts and I was wondering if anyone has an opinion on the bible translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls,as the texts are supposedly far older than any other texts?
Dead Sea Scrolls Bible
Yours in Christ,
T.J.
The Dead Sea Scrolls contained no NT books. The standard OT text underlying our modern English translations of the OT come from the Masoretic Text. The Dead Sea Scrolls conform very nearly closely to it such that the differences are minimal. From the translator notes in my NET Bible, it would appear the issues involving OT translation involve more about word meanings than textual issues themselves. The absence of vowel markings occasionally provide more than one choice of word, based on spelling differences and grammar than anything else.
I hope I am not wrong. But that's the way it appears to me.
_____________________________
Larry
Why is it when we talk to God we're said to be praying -
but when God talks to us, we're schizophrenic.----Lily Tomlin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/4/2008 10:07:12 PM
|
|
|
TJO5
Posts: 147
Joined: 12/1/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello GrahamCracker,
It appears that you are right about them being the Old Testament only.
The Masoretic text is the text that had vowel points added to it .
This text is of later date than the Greek LXX,and disagrees with it in many points- especially critical in many Messianic passages.
The LXX is usually the version quoted by New Testament authors.
I am unsure now how interesting the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible would be unless it also shows the original text along with the translation.
Yours in Christ,
T.J.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/5/2008 3:35:02 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1466
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TJO5
In this debate I notice that imortance is given to the antiquity of texts and I was wondering if anyone has an opinion on the bible translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls,as the texts are supposedly far older than any other texts?
Dead Sea Scrolls Bible
Yours in Christ,
T.J.
I have a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, and it is only of a limited value for biblical studies, and it has no value as a regular bible. It is a reference work, not a bible. What it contains are translations of only the texts found at the Dead Sea, and these are very fragmentary; the book of Isaiah is one of the few books that is almost entirely complete, and that is because it is one of the few scrolls that was found intact among the Dead Sea collection. Most of the scrolls from the Dead Sea were destroyed by the Roman Army around 70 AD and most of the fragments have been completely lost. Where there are no text from the Dead Sea scrolls this bible has no translation. For instance since no fragments of Ester were found, there is no translation for any part of Ester in this bible, and since they found only small fragments of 2 Chronicles i.e four verses from chapters 28, and 29 that is contained from Chronicles, etc... One of the best features of this bible is that it identifies all of the fragments associated with each translation by name and number thereby providing a good index for further study; It unfortunately contains no Hebrew photos or transliterations. For a student of Hebrew and the Dead Sea scrolls it has a limited usefulness (mostly as a convenient index of the biblical fragments), as a general bible it has absolutely no value at all.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/5/2008 3:42:56 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1466
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TJO5
Hello GrahamCracker,
It appears that you are right about them being the Old Testament only.
The Masoretic text is the text that had vowel points added to it .
This text is of later date than the Greek LXX,and disagrees with it in many points- especially critical in many Messianic passages.
The LXX is usually the version quoted by New Testament authors.
I am unsure now how interesting the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible would be unless it also shows the original text along with the translation.
Yours in Christ,
T.J.
The Dead Sea bible does offer some discussion about the source fragments i.e. classifying them into textual groups. One of the things learned from the Dead Sea is that there were several different Hebrew textual traditions in the first century, some are nearly identical to the Masoretic text, and some are likely the source of the LXX. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls most scholars had assumed that the textual divergence in the LXX was due to a mis-translation; however, we now have (from the Dead Sea) Hebrew texts that reflect the same divergence. Some of the very oldest Dead Sea scrolls; however, are classified as proto-Masoretic. So it is unlikely that the LXX represents an older textual tradition than that of the Masoretic text.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/5/2008 11:08:31 AM
|
|
|
TJO5
Posts: 147
Joined: 12/1/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello Benelchi,
The Dead Sea bible does sound like it would be worth the price to get possibly.
The same people also offer up another resource which may contain more.
The Dead Sea Scrolls:A New Translation
quote:
The Dead Sea bible does offer some discussion about the source fragments i.e. classifying them into textual groups. One of the things learned from the Dead Sea is that there were several different Hebrew textual traditions in the first century, some are nearly identical to the Masoretic text, and some are likely the source of the LXX. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls most scholars had assumed that the textual divergence in the LXX was due to a mis-translation; however, we now have (from the Dead Sea) Hebrew texts that reflect the same divergence. Some of the very oldest Dead Sea scrolls; however, are classified as proto-Masoretic. So it is unlikely that the LXX represents an older textual tradition than that of the Masoretic text.
That is the part which intrigues me the most. The Hebrew texts which underlie the LXX. I would like to see especially passages like Psalm 22:16 just to see why it was translated the way it was. Was it an intentional divergence or a variant translation?
Yours in Christ,
T.J.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/5/2008 11:32:41 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 1466
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TJO5
Hello Benelchi,
The Dead Sea bible does sound like it would be worth the price to get possibly.
The same people also offer up another resource which may contain more.
The Dead Sea Scrolls:A New Translation
quote:
The Dead Sea bible does offer some discussion about the source fragments i.e. classifying them into textual groups. One of the things learned from the Dead Sea is that there were several different Hebrew textual traditions in the first century, some are nearly identical to the Masoretic text, and some are likely the source of the LXX. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls most scholars had assumed that the textual divergence in the LXX was due to a mis-translation; however, we now have (from the Dead Sea) Hebrew texts that reflect the same divergence. Some of the very oldest Dead Sea scrolls; however, are classified as proto-Masoretic. So it is unlikely that the LXX represents an older textual tradition than that of the Masoretic text.
That is the part which intrigues me the most. The Hebrew texts which underlie the LXX. I would like to see especially passages like Psalm 22:16 just to see why it was translated the way it was. Was it an intentional divergence or a variant translation?
Yours in Christ,
T.J.
I also have a copy of this book, but I checked my bookshelf (and I didn't put it back), so from memory I believe that the this was a translation of the sectarian (non-biblical) scrolls. Looking at the link you posted, I remembered the Michael Wise was on this project. His work is better in this book than it is in others, but I do question some of his translations and definitely his interpretations. He was one of the authors of "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered", one of the worst books ever written on the topic.
A book similar to this one written by Geza Vermes is "The Dead Sea Scrolls in English"; however, for more serious study their is a two volume interlinear by Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar called "The Dead Sea Scrolls study edition"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 1/5/2008 10:46:13 PM
|
|
|
mr.scripture
Posts: 113
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: 20 miles west of atlanta
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: mr.scripture
i do not know where in the KJV where it tells me
that the bible is not inspired by GOD
2 timothy 3:16 tells me that:
all scripture is given by inspiration of GOD........
So where in the NIV or the NASB does it say that they are not inspired? Why suggest that the KJV is the only inspired version in English? I know of a pastor who believes that the KJV is the only English version approved by God.
quote:
look for yourself and compare other translations to the KJV
scriptures such as:
colossians 1:14......why is " through his blood " removed
Did the newer versions remove "blood" or did the KJV add "blood"? If such an agenda exists to detract from "the blood of Christ," why did they not remove it from all places where the word is located?
The newer versions do not have it in Col. 1:14 because the Greek manusripts upon which they are based did not contain it. That's all. No agenda. No conspiracy. No secret motives. No Satanic inspiration or other such claptrap.
quote:
matthew 18:11 where is the verse and why is it removed
Why indeed? It must be demons in the publishing office. My NET Bible says: "This verse...is almost certainly not in the original. The present translation follows the standard critical Greek texts in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed in a number of other modern translations." (NET Bible, page 1766, First Beta Edition.) | | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
JESUS...MAN!!!! 
