|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/30/2009 4:32:38 PM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6322
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
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
If you understand the point I am trying to make then there is nothing hypocritical about it. Yes I believe all those scenarios you mentioned. Yes I believe the Scripture was and is the Divinely Inspired Word of God. I believe the Scripture is perfect and without error. I do not however believe any translation we have in the english language is perfect or without error. Many of the errors have been pointed out in this thread in regards to the KJV. Some errors have been pointed out in the other translations. I guess if you wish we could list all the errors in the various translations. But, I don't feel that would be necessary. What we have to discuss here is who made the errors. Were they made by man or were they made by God. I for one do not believe GOd made any errors. That only leaves man.
Don't get me wrong. They are some very good translations out there. The KJV is one of them. But try as hard as they may man has yet to reach a level of perfectness. We are going to make mistakes and errors even in the translating of the Holy Scriptures. That is the basis for my statement you objected to. Can God use man for this purpose. Of course He can. Can He make them perfect? Of course He can. Did He? Nope. I don't know why but He did not make us perfect. We can and oft times do make mistakes. It appears that man has just about messed up everything God created. And I fear this trend will continue to spiral downward until Jesus returns.
_____________________________
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 5:07:12 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1760
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you understand the point I am trying to make then there is nothing hypocritical about it. Yes I believe all those scenarios you mentioned. Yes I believe the Scripture was and is the Divinely Inspired Word of God. I believe the Scripture is perfect and without error. I do not however believe any translation we have in the english language is perfect or without error. Many of the errors have been pointed out in this thread in regards to the KJV. Some errors have been pointed out in the other translations. I guess if you wish we could list all the errors in the various translations. But, I don't feel that would be necessary. What we have to discuss here is who made the errors. Were they made by man or were they made by God. I for one do not believe GOd made any errors. That only leaves man.
This is a much better argument, Qtman
quote:
We are going to make mistakes and errors even in the translating of the Holy Scriptures.
Not if God decides to use man to preserve His Word's as shown in the doctrine of preservation clearly laid out in Scripture.
You believe that since all these translations have been written by man, then there is no way any of them are perfect because man is not perfect. And this is very hypocritical because you believe in the divine inspiration of the originals, which was physically written by man!
Basically, all I'm saying is that this is a very inconsistent and weak argument. That's all. I'm not calling you stupid though! HAHA. Your other arguments are much better historically, intellectually, and objectively speaking. I'd stick to those.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/30/2009 6:38:15 PM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6322
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
If you didn't notice I am not arguing against the KJV. My argument is against the "Perfect and Error Free" Statement as it applies to all the English translations. If they have errors, and they do, then they are not Perfect and error free. Can't be.
If one choses to use the KJV more power to them. I use it myself. Just not exclusive.
_____________________________
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 6:43:33 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1760
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
If they have errors...then they are not Perfect and error free. Can't be.
Well duh! HAHA. But it seemed as though you were arguing against whether or not man can translate Scriptures into the English language perfect and without error. After all, you did say...
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".
To boil this down, you basically said that when man gets involved in the translation process, none of those translations can be perfect. This is wrong. And I have simply pointed out that this is very weak and perhaps a bit hypocritical, given that as a Christian you have no problem believing any other miracle involving man. That's all.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/30/2009 7:08:33 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
We are going to make mistakes and errors even in the translating of the Holy Scriptures.
Not if God decides to use man to preserve His Word's as shown in the doctrine of preservation clearly laid out in Scripture.
You believe that since all these translations have been written by man, then there is no way any of them are perfect because man is not perfect. And this is very hypocritical because you believe in the divine inspiration of the originals, which was physically written by man!
Basically, all I'm saying is that this is a very inconsistent and weak argument. That's all. I'm not calling you stupid though! HAHA. Your other arguments are much better historically, intellectually, and objectively speaking. I'd stick to those.
We have apostles and prophets, who the scriptures tell us were inspired of God. We do not have inspired translators.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/30/2009 7:16:05 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1760
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
We are going to make mistakes and errors even in the translating of the Holy Scriptures.
Not if God decides to use man to preserve His Word's as shown in the doctrine of preservation clearly laid out in Scripture.
You believe that since all these translations have been written by man, then there is no way any of them are perfect because man is not perfect. And this is very hypocritical because you believe in the divine inspiration of the originals, which was physically written by man!
Basically, all I'm saying is that this is a very inconsistent and weak argument. That's all. I'm not calling you stupid though! HAHA. Your other arguments are much better historically, intellectually, and objectively speaking. I'd stick to those.
We have apostles and prophets, who the scriptures tell us were inspired of God. We do not have inspired translators.
And this is why I began to post here.
Where have I stated that anything outside of the originals was inspired?
You are proving my point that I made a while ago--that many jump to conclusions.
Please don't make these assumptive jumps, GC. No translation outside the originals has been inspired. NONE. Only a few extremists believe this, yet you fail to see the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/30/2009 7:35:57 PM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6322
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
If they have errors...then they are not Perfect and error free. Can't be.
Well duh! HAHA. But it seemed as though you were arguing against whether or not man can translate Scriptures into the English language perfect and without error. After all, you did say...
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".
To boil this down, you basically said that when man gets involved in the translation process, none of those translations can be perfect. This is wrong. And I have simply pointed out that this is very weak and perhaps a bit hypocritical, given that as a Christian you have no problem believing any other miracle involving man. That's all.
Speaking of not understanding and jumping to conclusions. If you read what I actually said you will see I said the translations could not be considered perfect. I did not say they could not be translated perfectly I said they are not. Maybe I did not word it right. As far as the statement about when man gets involved I will stick to that. As I said before God certainly did not make the errors.
_____________________________
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 7:44:02 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1760
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
If they have errors...then they are not Perfect and error free. Can't be.
Well duh! HAHA. But it seemed as though you were arguing against whether or not man can translate Scriptures into the English language perfect and without error. After all, you did say...
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".
To boil this down, you basically said that when man gets involved in the translation process, none of those translations can be perfect. This is wrong. And I have simply pointed out that this is very weak and perhaps a bit hypocritical, given that as a Christian you have no problem believing any other miracle involving man. That's all.
Speaking of not understanding and jumping to conclusions. If you read what I actually said you will see I said the translations could not be considered perfect. I did not say they could not be translated perfectly I said they are not. Maybe I did not word it right. As far as the statement about when man gets involved I will stick to that. As I said before God certainly did not make the errors.
Ok
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 11:41:36 AM
|
|
|
WesP
Posts: 1440
Joined: 11/28/2005
From: Where God needs me to be
Status: offline
|
evry1needsgod,
Here is another consideration. The original languages have lost and/or gained nuances and biases since the scriptures were written. This can cause difficulties in perfect translation, too.
_____________________________
Peace,
Wes
___________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 12:15:22 PM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 119
Joined: 11/13/2008
Status: offline
|
I remember looking at an NASB Thompson in the bookstore, and a young man approached me and started to engage me in a debate.He was a KJV only person, and told me I needed to stay away from the other translations because they were inaccurate.I told him that the KJV was not 100% without translation errors, because if you look at Acts 12:4, the word "Easter" there should actually be translated "Passover".I hated to even bring it up because of my own love for the Word, but he wouldn't let up.When Paul said the Scriptures are "God-Breathed", he was referring to the originals of that time, not the KJV.The KJV is a translation from manuscripts, and it is because we have the older copies that we can discern whether something is the best possible translation or not.I heard Charles Stanley say that many scholars consider the NASB to be one of the most accurate translations we have.I like the NASB, but it is more of a personal preference than anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 12:21:57 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1760
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
evry1needsgod,
Here is another consideration. The original languages have lost and/or gained nuances and biases since the scriptures were written. This can cause difficulties in perfect translation, too.
Oh you're absolutely right! Never did I claim translating would be an easy feat! Let alone, translating it perfectly! Wow, I can only imagine the difficulty involved in that process.
However this does not change my belief.
It would be pretty darn difficult to raise someone from the dead too! Yet it has happened countless times.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 12:24:43 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1760
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I hated to even bring it up because of my own love for the Word, but he wouldn't let up.When Paul said the Scriptures are "God-Breathed", he was referring to the originals of that time, not the KJV
Can you remember, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the man claiming the KJV was inspired or "God-breathed", or was this your assumption? Did the man you debated actually say that the KJV was inspired?
Please be honest. I'm curious because it kind of has something to do with why I began posting here in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 12:41:23 PM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 119
Joined: 11/13/2008
Status: offline
|
Well, to be honest I think he was saying that the KJV was inerrant, and the rest of the translations were not.If by that he is saying it has no translation errors, then I have to disagree based on Acts 12:4.I believe that is what he was saying, because of his reaction when I pointed out a translation error.I felt bad, because the last thing I want to do is to shake someone's confidence in the Word.I honestly believe that the Scriptures we have are reliable and able to bring us to a saving knowledge of Christ, but this KJV superiority over other translations is bogus, especially when the NASB is said to be the most accurate by many scholars.
< Message edited by LetGo2God -- 7/1/2009 1:01:22 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 3:56:48 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1760
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well, to be honest I think he was saying that the KJV was inerrant, and the rest of the translations were not.
Thank you for answering my question honestly.
Idk if you read my first post when I came here; but it basically stated how so many non KJVOists make assumptive jumps when labeling people.
I too, like the man you debated, believe the KJV is perfect. However, I DO NOT believe it is INSPIRED! And yet I have already been accused of that belief once on this thread, even though I made it exclusively clear that I do not believe this. As I've said on countless occasions, there is a HUGE difference between preservation and inspiration. And yet, once I say I believe the the KJV is perfect, I am immediately grouped with the small, elitist minority of KJVOists founded by Dr. Peter Ruckman in Florida.
The only point I am trying to make is to keep an open mind. The elitists have given all those who stand behind the KJV an extremely bad (perhaps ever heretical) reputation, and unfortunately we are all lumped together.
So my advice would be to dig a bit deeper before you make assumptions while debating someone who believes the KJV is perfect. We aren't all out to get you guys who don't believe what we do! HAHA. That arrogance is not as popular as most non-KJVOists think.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 4:06:57 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2728
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
I too, like the man you debated, believe the KJV is perfect. However, I DO NOT believe it is INSPIRED!
I am not exactly sure what you mean by this. What I am hearing is that the translators did a perfect job, relying upon their own understanding and not God's inspiration.
In that case, you are saying that the translators of the 1600s were the smartest and most qualified scholars in history.
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 4:09:27 PM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 119
Joined: 11/13/2008
Status: offline
|
Maybe you need to go back and read my post.I am standing in the bookstore looking at NASB Thompsons, and the KJV only person engaged me in a debate.I did not start a debate with him.If you want to use the KJV, God bless you.But don't come up to me and start a big argument with me because I am using the NASB.That's all I'm saying.You don't hear about NASB only people.I'm not saying that you have a problem, but twice in my life I have had KJV people come up and start arguments with me because I use the NASB.Once at the bookstore, and once before a Church service.So, whatever impression I have about KJV only people comes from my own experience.And they weren't pleasant experiences, believe me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 4:10:42 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1760
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rawr.ben
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
I too, like the man you debated, believe the KJV is perfect. However, I DO NOT believe it is INSPIRED!
I am not exactly sure what you mean by this. What I am hearing is that the translators did a perfect job, relying upon their own understanding and not God's inspiration.
In that case, you are saying that the translators of the 1600s were the smartest and most qualified scholars in history.
One can be led (different from inspired) of the Holy Spirit to accomplish His will, can he not? I would hardly claim that the next time I obey the calling of God, that I was "inspired."
The doctrine of preservation simply states that God preserved His Words, not re-inspired them. Their inspiration was clearly only for the originals. How God preserves His Words is up to Him, but there is a difference between preservation and inspiration.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 4:16:40 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2728
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
One can be led (different from inspired) of the Holy Spirit to accomplish His will, can he not? I would hardly claim that the next time I obey the calling of God, that I was "inspired."
Fair enough. I don't like getting into semantics games.
quote:
The doctrine of preservation simply states that God preserved His Words, not re-inspired them. Their inspiration was clearly only for the originals. How God preserves His Words is up to Him, but there is a difference between preservation and inspiration.
Where does "doctrine" arise, if not from Scripture itself? You have a "doctrine" based purely on speculation that the 1600s was when God decided to preserve.
You say "How God preserves His Word is up to Him." I agree. But then you claim you know when and how He preserved it. Do you then claim to have some special revelation from God that that was His method and timing?
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 4:18:04 PM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 119
Joined: 11/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
especially when the NASB is said to be the most accurate by many scholars.
I have to say, this is the first time I've heard this. And this statement is an extremely subjective statement (of course my statements above are quite subjective also. ). How many scholars constitutes "many"? How many scholars say just the opposite? How many scholars say the KJV is the most accurate?
Go to wikipedia and type in New American Standard. Here is the quote:
"The New American Standard Bible is widely regarded as the most literally translated of 20th-century English Bible translations.[3]"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 4:19:09 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1760
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Maybe you need to go back and read my post.
Did I make an accusation that was not true? I'm confused...
First you said that this man you debated with believes that the KJV was inspired.
You then told me, in honestly because I asked, that he only stated he believed the KJV was perfect.
My only point here is that you made an assumption that, from what you've told me so far, was a false assumption on your part.
Can you admit this?
quote:
.So, whatever impression I have about KJV only people comes from my own experience.And they weren't pleasant experiences, believe me.
I know! I believe you, and I know exactly how you feel! I've had the same experiences, except for me they were possibly worse because I do not believe the KJV is INSPIRED, and that bothers them! HAHA. No one has good experiences with those extremists.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 4:21:29 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2728
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LetGo2God
Go to wikipedia and type in New American Standard. Here is the quote:
"The New American Standard Bible is widely regarded as the most literally translated of 20th-century English Bible translations.[3]"
"Literally translated" does not equate "most accurate."
When one translates "word for word" sometimes accuracy then is lost in the "thought" presented in Scripture.
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 4:22:56 PM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 119
Joined: 11/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
know! I believe you, and I know exactly how you feel! I've had the same experiences, except for me they were possibly worse because I do not believe the KJV is INSPIRED, and that bothers them! HAHA. No one has good experiences with those extremists.
I apologize for being harsh.The fact that you see them as being extremists as well tells me that you and I are on the same page.It's not wrong to use the KJV.I have a problem with the extremism of some of the KJV only crowd.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 4:24:27 PM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 119
Joined: 11/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
"Literally translated" does not equate "most accurate."
Ok, literally translated, then.How does this make it inferior to the KJV?
|
|
|
|
 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
). How many scholars constitutes "many"? How many scholars say just the opposite? How many scholars say the KJV is the most accurate? 
