|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 4:28:05 PM
|
|
|
WesP
Posts: 1440
Joined: 11/28/2005
From: Where God needs me to be
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LetGo2God
quote:
"Literally translated" does not equate "most accurate."
Ok, literally translated, then.How does this make it inferior to the KJV?
It doesn't. There are strengths and weaknesses in both. My suggestion is to compare verses in both and check them with Strongs, Vines, etc.
_____________________________
Peace,
Wes
___________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 4:30:31 PM
|
|
|
rawr.ben
Posts: 2728
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LetGo2God
quote:
"Literally translated" does not equate "most accurate."
Ok, literally translated, then.How does this make it inferior to the KJV?
I didn't say it made it inferior or superior. I was just pointing out the discrepancy.
_____________________________
rawr.ben
Facebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 4:37:34 PM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6323
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
First of all I agree with evry1needsgod in that there is a difference between inspired and led. The scriptures were inspired by God. The translations are simply that. They are translations of the inspired word.
I think evry1needsgod and I have agreed to disagree on the perfection part.
For the record the KJV is NOT the only English version of the bible we had for some 200 years. There was an English version of the Bible almost 100 years before the KJV was done. A New Testament even longer than that. Now it was the only AUTHORIZED version we had for some time.
As far as whiuch one is the best. I can probably line up about as many people claiming this or that version is the best. If it is the best for you then use it regardless of which version.
I too have had bad experiences with a fraction of the KJVO crowd but they are in the minority. I tend to overlook them.
God's word was and is preserved. It is preserved in the fact that the scrolls were not destroyed and were discovered years later and still legible. It is further preserved through the many translation, errors and all, that exist throughout the world.
_____________________________
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 - 7/1/2009 4:46:28 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
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.
Where did I say you did? I didn't jump to a conclusion. Remember, I was one of the first who responded to you when you said you didn't believe the KJV was inspired. Are you trying to portray some of us as making straw man arguments?
Are you baiting people? Is this some kind of game for you?
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 7/1/2009 4:58:37 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 4:53:55 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1760
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Where did I say you did? I didn't jump to a conclusion. Remember, I was one of the first who responded to you when you said you didn't believe the KJV was inspired. Are you trying to portray some of us as making straw man arguments?
Are you baiting people? Is this some kind of game for you?
Woah there, no evil intentions here buddy!
In a direct quote to me you said:
quote:
We have apostles and prophets, who the scriptures tell us were inspired of God. We do not have inspired translators.
(emphasis mine)
I guess I made the mistake of assuming you disagreed with me. Were you agreeing with me that "We do not have inspired translators"? If so, I definately apologize. My mistake.
Edit: the format of this post was a bit off, so I edited a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 4:58:08 PM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6323
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
Just a matter for information purposes. The KJV was not anything new even in 1611. It was a revision of the Bishops Bible which was a revision of The Great Bible. English Bibles that preceded the KJV was the Geneva Bible, and even before that the Tynsdale Bible. In fact I think you will find the "pilgrims" that settled Jamestown and maybe even Plymouth had the Geneva Bible. The Geneva bible was very prominent amoung the Protestant movement and the KJV was prominent among the Catholic church or the Church of England which was catholic at the time.
evry1needsgod I was raised by a Methodist minister. My own Dad was a KJVO preacher. So yes I have studied the history of the Bible for many years.
_____________________________
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 - 7/1/2009 5:03:32 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Where did I say you did? I didn't jump to a conclusion. Remember, I was one of the first who responded to you when you said you didn't believe the KJV was inspired. Are you trying to portray some of us as making straw man arguments?
Are you baiting people? Is this some kind of game for you?
Woah there, no evil intentions here buddy!
In a direct quote to me you said:
quote:
We have apostles and prophets, who the scriptures tell us were inspired of God. We do not have inspired translators.
(emphasis mine)
I guess I made the mistake of assuming you disagreed with me. Were you agreeing with me that "We do not have inspired translators"? If so, I definately apologize. My mistake.
Edit: the format of this post was a bit off, so I edited a bit.
I was trying to correct the quote boxes and didn't finish when you responded. We are both online.
I guess that I have heard a lot of KJVOs arguing for the inspiration of the KJV. I am kind of straining to understand the purpose of all of these discussions about a perfect translation. Frankly, I don't believe the KJV is a perfect translation either.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 5:15:10 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1760
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I was trying to correct the quote boxes and didn't finish when you responded. We are both online.
Oh oops! Well I think they are better now...
quote:
I guess that I have heard a lot of KJVOs arguing for the inspiration of the KJV.
This is true. A lot do. A whole college down in Pensacola, Florida is dedicated to this. But I can reassure you that they (and their arrogance) is the minority. Most "KJVOists" who believe the KJV is perfect do not believe it is inspired.
quote:
I am kind of straining to understand the purpose of all of these discussions about a perfect translation.
Well it is obviously important to MANY people on both sides of the spectrum since there are already over 60 pages of comments regarding this issue. I think this proves that this debate is very important to people whether or not they believe the KJV is perfect. Personally I find it quite fascinating.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 5:43:29 PM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 6344
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dothan, AL
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eutychus
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Well it is obviously important to MANY people on both sides of the spectrum since there are already over 60 pages of comments regarding this issue. I think this proves that this debate is very important to people whether or not they believe the KJV is perfect. Personally I find it quite fascinating.
It just boggles my mind that anyone could say the KJV is perfect when there are obvious mistakes in it, obvious even to the casual student of the Bible.
Well these errors OBVIOUSLY aren't that OBVIOUS, given that there are over 1500 posts regarding this issue! Not only that, but millions of Christians who believe in the perfection of the KJV. If the errors were so "obvious" and without any explanation, don't you think this thread would not exist, or at least not as large as it is? I certainly don't see a 63 page thread on what color the sky is. 
I know you may feel that my opinion is perhaps a bit pathetic and ridiculous, but your opinion is not as obvious as you may think.
Those errors have been posted repeatedly, such as the error of "Easter" and mistranslating "Joshua" as "Jesus." One has to choose to ignore those obvious errors to hold to either "perfect" or "inspired."
And I seriously doubt that there are still millions in the KJVO camp, if there ever were millions.
_____________________________
Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." -John 6:29
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 6:08:23 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
I was trying to correct the quote boxes and didn't finish when you responded. We are both online.
Oh oops! Well I think they are better now...
quote:
I guess that I have heard a lot of KJVOs arguing for the inspiration of the KJV.
This is true. A lot do. A whole college down in Pensacola, Florida is dedicated to this. But I can reassure you that they (and their arrogance) is the minority. Most "KJVOists" who believe the KJV is perfect do not believe it is inspired.
I figured that. Even though I have not met many people who went to school there, I attended a school where there were enough people to keep a quarrel going every now and then.
quote:
I am kind of straining to understand the purpose of all of these discussions about a perfect translation.
Well it is obviously important to MANY people on both sides of the spectrum since there are already over 60 pages of comments regarding this issue. I think this proves that this debate is very important to people whether or not they believe the KJV is perfect. Personally I find it quite fascinating.
If the KJV is perfect, then it at least should be better than any other translation, unless some other translation is perfect too. It seems to me that at some people the argument is going to get rather circular. Why bother?
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 6:18:01 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1760
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
If the KJV is perfect, then it at least should be better than any other translation, unless some other translation is perfect too. It seems to me that at some people the argument is going to get rather circular. Why bother?
I'm confused. So why on earth are you here?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 6:21:30 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
If the KJV is perfect, then it at least should be better than any other translation, unless some other translation is perfect too. It seems to me that at some people the argument is going to get rather circular. Why bother?
I'm confused. So why on earth are you here?
This is a discussion about KJV Only, right? I believe KJV only arguments are flawed.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 6:26:38 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1760
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
If the KJV is perfect, then it at least should be better than any other translation, unless some other translation is perfect too. It seems to me that at some people the argument is going to get rather circular. Why bother?
I'm confused. So why on earth are you here?
This is a discussion about KJV Only, right? I believe KJV only arguments are flawed.
quote:
This is a discussion about KJV Only, right?
Yes, but I think part of debating the perfection of the KJV is showing the errors of other translations and the manuscripts they use, correct?
So if you say "why bother" then why are you here?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 6:45:17 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1590
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
This is a discussion about KJV Only, right?
Yes, but I think part of debating the perfection of the KJV is showing the errors of other translations and the manuscripts they use, correct?
So if you say "why bother" then why are you here?
Look. I was looking up the use of "Easter" in Acts 12: 3 a couple of weeks ago. A couple of web sites were going to great lengths to show that when the KJV used the word "Easter," it was correct. They maintained it was correct because "obviously" Herod was using a pagan calendar instead of a Jewish one. That and similar arguments demonstrates to me that some KJVOs are going to argue that the KJV is correct no matter what the facts are. If they can't they'll just invent new facts like the web sites that I found.
Circular arguments like that one are absurd. And it is difficult to argue with that kind of stupidity. "Why bother?" was an expression of my frustration of trying to have a discussion with some people who will maintain an argument in face of the facts against it.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 7:23:17 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1760
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
This is a discussion about KJV Only, right?
Yes, but I think part of debating the perfection of the KJV is showing the errors of other translations and the manuscripts they use, correct?
So if you say "why bother" then why are you here?
Look. I was looking up the use of "Easter" in Acts 12: 3 a couple of weeks ago. A couple of web sites were going to great lengths to show that when the KJV used the word "Easter," it was correct. They maintained it was correct because "obviously" Herod was using a pagan calendar instead of a Jewish one. That and similar arguments demonstrates to me that some KJVOs are going to argue that the KJV is correct no matter what the facts are. If they can't they'll just invent new facts like the web sites that I found.
Circular arguments like that one are absurd. And it is difficult to argue with that kind of stupidity. "Why bother?" was an expression of my frustration of trying to have a discussion with some people who will maintain an argument in face of the facts against it.
Ok
|
|
|
|
 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
