|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/29/2009 10:27:18 AM
|
|
|
ushalk
Posts: 318
Joined: 4/15/2009
Status: offline
|
i do not believe that it is the only bible to use. but i do believe that it is the most acurately translated. in todays world many believe the niv or the nasb and claim them to be more accurate. however we cant claim this accurately because of the changes in the languages between then and now.
_____________________________
if we hide the truth we kill a soul.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/29/2009 10:29:24 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6323
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
Iwillfearnoevil,
HERE is a blog entry I made some time ago. It is a capsulated history of the Engllish Translations of the Bible. Actually there are three entries I believe. Maybe it will prove to be an interesting read.
_____________________________
At one time Jesus was my co-pilot. Things are much better now that He and I have changed seats.
<Me & my happyplate at Lobster Hut
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/29/2009 1:58:51 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6733
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
Do not misunderstand me folks. I believe the KJV is a good translation. But it is only a translation. It is no better or no worse than other translation.
I agree Qtman, and I use the KJV much more than any of the other 20 or so versions of which I am in possession.
But contrary to popular belief; the Apostle Paul did not penn the KJV. It was mostly a plaagurism of the Bishops Bible which proceeded it.
The reason for the wide spread popularity of the KJV was not the "Accuracy" of the translation,, but the fact that the style and size of the type setting made in a smaller book and easier to transport.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/29/2009 2:23:12 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6733
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
I respectfully ask which of the revisions of the KJV do you use, there have been a number of Changes since the 1611 version.
rc (or others) - could you elaborate on this point. when i did a brief googling all i could find were rebuttals like from chick tract denying these were true revisions but mostly new editions featuring different fonts, spelling changes (ie, feare and darke changed to fear and dark). it does not seem like major revisions or new works and pretty much the same version from what i can tell. were there any major changes?
I am not trying to argue against your point - i'm not a kjvo or an okjv - reading from tniv/niv mostly the last few months
There were revisions in 1629, 1638, 1762, 1769, and 1873. The Aprocrypha was removed in 1885.
Now wether these were "Major" changes or not; it would seem that any change to God's Unerring Word of the KJV of 1611 would indicate at least some error. And some "Error" would devistate the "Perfectness" that some claim.
Again; I love the KJV, but it is just a tranlation of prior translation with many minor (not doctrinal changing, but minor) errore that have been handed down for two thousand years.
I spent way too much of my life studying classic Greek, but nothing I leaned changed anything significant about the KJV or most others out there. It is just that many of the really fanatical KJVO folks do get a little (or a lot) overboard without anything to back up their position.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/29/2009 2:34:43 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1770
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
The KJV has been perfectly preserved complete and without error.
I respectfully ask which of the revisions of the KJV do you use, there have been a number of Changes since the 1611 version.
I ask this not to be argumentative, but in sincerity.
And since the apocrypha was part of the original 1611 KJV and remained part of it until the 1800s, do you believe it is the perfectly preserved Word of God also.
Thanks
RC
I use the Authorized King James Version 1611. Basically this merely "revised" the spelling of the words, and took out the Apocrypha. It is, however, hard to label it a "revision" because it did not change words or meanings.
As for the Apocrypha...
If, say, I believed the KJV was INSPIRED, I would have a major problem on my hands concerning the Apocrypha. However, it would be absurd to believe this in ways I do not wish to discuss. It would take too much time and I don't have the desire.
However I will say this. The Apocryphal books added to the 1611 were in no way considered, by the translators, part of the Scriptural canon, and neither do I. The books added were still under scrutiny and were considered good books, but not necessarily part of Scripture unless deemed otherwise in the future. Later it was removed.
So I have absolutely no problem or issue with the original 1611 including the Apocrypha. The 1611 simply did not consider those books canonical, so neither do I.
However, this DOES present a problem for Peter Ruckman and his ilk, because if the Holy Spirit inspired the KJV, the He inspired the Apocrypha...which obviously NONE of them would agree to. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/29/2009 2:38:49 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1770
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Now wether these were "Major" changes or not; it would seem that any change to God's Unerring Word of the KJV of 1611 would indicate at least some error. And some "Error" would devistate the "Perfectness" that some claim.
I must disagree.
I don't see a difference between:
(Original) Rom 3:23 For all haue sinned, and come short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Or...
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sinne is death: but the gift of God is eternall life, through Iesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/29/2009 2:57:30 PM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 6359
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dothan, AL
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
Now wether these were "Major" changes or not; it would seem that any change to God's Unerring Word of the KJV of 1611 would indicate at least some error. And some "Error" would devistate the "Perfectness" that some claim.
I must disagree.
I don't see a difference between:
(Original) Rom 3:23 For all haue sinned, and come short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Or...
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sinne is death: but the gift of God is eternall life, through Iesus Christ our Lord.
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
I used to have a list of the notable and serious errors, but have misplaced it. There still remains the "minor" errors, like the use of "Easter" and mis-translating "Joshua" as "Jesus," both in Acts.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/29/2009 3:10:35 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1770
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eutychus
KJV Translation Errors
I skimmed through this and I'm a bit confused
Which revision is being compared to the original?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/29/2009 3:41:08 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
I respectfully ask which of the revisions of the KJV do you use, there have been a number of Changes since the 1611 version.
rc (or others) - could you elaborate on this point. when i did a brief googling all i could find were rebuttals like from chick tract denying these were true revisions but mostly new editions featuring different fonts, spelling changes (ie, feare and darke changed to fear and dark). it does not seem like major revisions or new works and pretty much the same version from what i can tell. were there any major changes?
i am not trying to argue against your point - i'm not a kjvo or an okjv - reading from tniv/niv mostly the last few months
OLD TESTAMENT
1611 KING JAMES VERSION LATER EDITIONS OF KJV
Gen. xxxix. 16 her lord his lord, 1638
Lev. 26:40 confess the iniquity of their fathers (the iniquities, 1613)
confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers (1616)
Jer. 38:16 So the king sware So Zedekiah the king sware
I Kings 11:5 Amorites (Ammorites 1612) Ammonites, 1629
II Kings 11:10 the Temple the temple of the Lord, 1638
2 Chron. iii. 10 most holy place most holy house, 1629,
2 Chron. xxxii. 5 prepared Millo repaired Millo, 1616, 1617
Ezra ii. 22 The children of Netophah The men of Netophah, 1638
Job xxxix. 30 there is he there is she, 1616, 16171
Psalm ii. 6 & marg. Sion Zion, 16382. Cf. Ps. lxix. 35
Psalm lxv. 1 Sion Zion, Amer. 1867 only. See below, note 2
Psalm lxix. 32 seek good seek God, 1617
Psalm lxix. 35 Sion Zion, 1761.Cf. p. 165 note 2
Jer. xl. 9,10 marg.
ver. 9 † to serve
†Heb. to stand before. And so verse 101
ver. 10. † to serve.
† Heb. to stand before, 1629-1769, Bagster 1846, American 1867
Ezek. i. 17 returned / Bishops Bible turned, 1769. Cf. vers. 9, 12
Ezek. iii.11 thy people the children of thy people, 1638
Ezek. xxiv. 7 poured it poured it not, 1613
Ezek. xlvi. 23 a new building a row of building, 1638
Dan. xii. 13 in the lot in thy lot, 1638
Zech. vii. 7 of the plain and the plain, 1638
NEW TESTAMENT
1611 KING JAMES VERSION LATER EDITIONS OF KJV
Matt. vi. 3 thy right doeth thy right hand doeth, 1613 (not 1616, 1617), 1629, 1630
Matt. xxvi. 75 the words of Jesus the word of Jesus, 1762
Luke i. 3 understanding of things understanding of all things, 1629
Luke xi. 3 his sister his sisters, 1629
John vii. 16 Jesus answered them, Jesus answered them, and said, 1634, 1638
John xv. 20 than the Lord (lord 1629-1743) than his lord, 1762
Acts. xxiv. 24 which was a Jew which was a Jewess, 1629. Cf. ch. xvi. 1
1 Cor. xii. 28 helps in governments helps, governments, 1629
2 Cor. xi. 32 the city the city of the Damascenes, 1629
Eph. vi. 24 sincerity sincerity, Amen, 1616 (not 1617, 1629 C.)
2 Thess. ii. 14 the Lord Jesus Christ our Lord Jesus Christ, 1629
1 Tim. i. 4 edifying godly edifying, 1638 (Tynd.-Bps’)
2 Tim. iv. 13 bring with thee bring with thee, and the books, 1616, 1617, 1629 C. & L., 1630.
1 John v. 12 hath not the Son1 hath not the Son of God, 1629 C. (not 1629 L., 1630), 16382.
Heb. x. 23 faith hope. See Appendix E, p. 247.
[Post edited by mod to fix screen formatting]
< Message edited by ta_mosquito -- 6/29/2009 9:27:04 PM >
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/29/2009 3:50:25 PM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 6359
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dothan, AL
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eutychus
KJV Translation Errors
I skimmed through this and I'm a bit confused
Which revision is being compared to the original?
I believe they stated that the "original" KJV was a translation of a translation. Some of the errors are errors because they didn't use Hebrew or Greek manuscripts. Some were because the translators weren't "inerrantly inspired" as some claim.
SNIPPET:
You have probably heard the joke about the bigoted Protestant fundamentalist who said, "If the King James Version was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!" People sometimes forget that the KJV was published in 1611 A.D.
For centuries prior to 1611, Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the "official" text of the powerful Roman Catholic Church.
Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV.
The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV errors, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much worse!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/29/2009 3:51:19 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1770
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eutychus
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eutychus
KJV Translation Errors
I skimmed through this and I'm a bit confused
Which revision is being compared to the original?
I believe they stated that the "original" KJV was a translation of a translation. Some of the errors are errors because they didn't use Hebrew or Greek manuscripts. Some were because the translators weren't "inerrantly inspired" as some claim.
Ok
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/29/2009 3:59:49 PM
|
|
|
WesP
Posts: 1440
Joined: 11/28/2005
From: Where God needs me to be
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ushalk
i do not believe that it is the only bible to use. but i do believe that it is the most acurately translated. in todays world many believe the niv or the nasb and claim them to be more accurate. however we cant claim this accurately because of the changes in the languages between then and now.
While I certainly do not believe NIV is more accurate than KJV, I have to ask you about your reasoning based on language changes. What time frame are you looking at to establish this? KJV came 1500+ years after Revelation was finished, so it would seem probable that there were many changes during that time. There was another few hundred years before NIV, etc. Which block of time are you referring to, and which one contained the most changes? If you are referring to the entire block, then I am still confused because translations come from the Greek, etc. and not from other translations.
_____________________________
Peace,
Wes
___________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/29/2009 4:17:31 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4566
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
While I certainly do not believe NIV is more accurate than KJV
It depends on which passage you are speaking about. The NIV is far more accurate than the KJV when it mentions "passover" in Acts rather than the KJV's "easter" or when it translates the Aramaic 'elahin' as gods in Daniel rather than the KJV's mistaken 'God'. However, the KJV is more accurate in its translation of Ex. 1 and in translating the name of the King in Ester. In these cases the NIV translators took liberties they should not have. Both versions have strengths and weaknesses.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/29/2009 4:39:24 PM
|
|
|
WesP
Posts: 1440
Joined: 11/28/2005
From: Where God needs me to be
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
While I certainly do not believe NIV is more accurate than KJV
It depends on which passage you are speaking about. The NIV is far more accurate than the KJV when it mentions "passover" in Acts rather than the KJV's "easter" or when it translates the Aramaic 'elahin' as gods in Daniel rather than the KJV's mistaken 'God'. However, the KJV is more accurate in its translation of Ex. 1 and in translating the name of the King in Ester. In these cases the NIV translators took liberties they should not have. Both versions have strengths and weaknesses.
I just meant in general. I was trying to make sure that there was no misunderstanding that I was pushing a particular translation. I use both KJV and NIV at times. Then there is NASB, Holman Christian, etc.
_____________________________
Peace,
Wes
___________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/29/2009 4:59:12 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ushalk
i do not believe that it is the only bible to use. but i do believe that it is the most acurately translated. in todays world many believe the niv or the nasb and claim them to be more accurate. however we cant claim this accurately because of the changes in the languages between then and now.
I mean no disrespect nor anything personal. But I find it interesting that someone considers themselves a good judge of translation accuracy when they cannot express themselves grammatically in English.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/30/2009 2:37:36 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 205
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I use the Authorized King James Version 1611. Basically this merely "revised" the spelling of the words, and took out the Apocrypha. It is, however, hard to label it a "revision" because it did not change words or meanings.
They weren't all spelling changes. I see that someone, benelchi I think, provided a list, if you read carefully, you'll see some that weren't spelling changes and DO change the meaning of the verse.
For instance, there is a rather big difference between "seek good" and "seek God" in Psalms, and "there is he" and "there is she" in Job. And, "poured it" and "poured it not" in Ezekiel.
It's true that the majority of the changes are spelling or very minor, and don't really make a difference, but it really isn't accurate to say that the changes were only spelling. There were changes, and some of those changes did, indeed, change the meaning of the verse.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/30/2009 3:19:54 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6733
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
They weren't all spelling changes. I see that someone, benelchi I think, provided a list, if you read carefully, you'll see some that weren't spelling changes and DO change the meaning of the verse.
For instance, there is a rather big difference between "seek good" and "seek God" in Psalms, and "there is he" and "there is she" in Job. And, "poured it" and "poured it not" in Ezekiel.
It's true that the majority of the changes are spelling or very minor, and don't really make a difference, but it really isn't accurate to say that the changes were only spelling. There were changes, and some of those changes did, indeed, change the meaning of the verse.
I whole heartedly agee that all the changes were not only "Spelling" changes; but even if they were it would sink the boat of the "Perfectness" of the original 1611 verson.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/30/2009 3:37:20 PM
|
|
|
iwillfearnoevil
Posts: 3617
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: upstate NY
Status: offline
|
thank you qtman and others such as bene for some of those links, they were good reads.
_____________________________
Photoblogging My Life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/30/2009 3:41:43 PM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6323
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
They weren't all spelling changes. I see that someone, benelchi I think, provided a list, if you read carefully, you'll see some that weren't spelling changes and DO change the meaning of the verse.
For instance, there is a rather big difference between "seek good" and "seek God" in Psalms, and "there is he" and "there is she" in Job. And, "poured it" and "poured it not" in Ezekiel.
It's true that the majority of the changes are spelling or very minor, and don't really make a difference, but it really isn't accurate to say that the changes were only spelling. There were changes, and some of those changes did, indeed, change the meaning of the verse.
I whole heartedly agee that all the changes were not only "Spelling" changes; but even if they were it would sink the boat of the "Perfectness" of the original 1611 verson.
Thanks
RC
I agree Brother. THe truth is once you leave the original language and "man" gets envolved in translating none of translations we have could be consider the "Perfect, Preserved Word of God".
_____________________________
At one time Jesus was my co-pilot. Things are much better now that He and I have changed seats.
<Me & my happyplate at Lobster Hut
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/30/2009 3:45:00 PM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6323
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iwillfearnoevil
thank you qtman and others such as bene for some of those links, they were good reads.
For my part you are most welcome. I only hope it helped a little.
_____________________________
At one time Jesus was my co-pilot. Things are much better now that He and I have changed seats.
<Me & my happyplate at Lobster Hut
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/30/2009 4:00:55 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1770
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
THe truth is once you leave the original language and "man" gets envolved in translating none of translations we have could be consider the "Perfect, Preserved Word of God".
I don't have a problem with the textual arguments you may use against the validity/perfection of the KJV, but this is one argument I have no patience with. Allow me to explain, and please understand I mean this in the highest respect.
You believe that Christ died and rose again from the dead--something that is impossible without divine intervention.
You believe that a man named Lazarus came back from the dead--something that is impossible without divine intervention.
You believe that Jesus multiplied a couple fishes and loaves into a buffet--something that is impossible without divine intervention.
Yet you think it is impossible for man to perfectly preserve God's word into the dominating language of the time. This is to say that it is impossible for God to use man (which He did when He inspired the originals--something that is impossible without divine intervention.) to accomplish this purpose if He so chooses.
I just think it is a bit hypocritical to say that there is no way man can translate the Scriptures from the originals complete and without error, and yet believe all the other miracles shown in Scripture.
My only point here is that this is a VERY weak argument for your POV, and even a bit disingenuous to Christ.
If you want to debate against the KJV, you stand a much better chance, intellectually speaking, to win said debate with arguments other than this.
And I can say this because I don't agree with your arguments at all! LOL! As I've stated here already, I believe the KJV is perfect. But I'm at least honest enough to tell you which arguments work and which are purely unintellectual. I mean no offense here. Just an honest brother in Christ...
In Christ,
ZG
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
