|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 10:10:28 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1727
Status: offline
|
quote:
Those errors have been posted repeatedly,
And those allegations of *errors* have also been refuted repeatedly.
quote:
such as the error of "Easter"
The Greek word translated as Easter is pascha, which could also be translated as Passover, and should have been thus translated. However, at the time this translation was made Easter and Passover were celebrated simultaneously, thus an anachronism was introduced into the KJV. But an anachronism is not necessarily an error. Had they put "Pentecost" in place of "Passover" that would certainly be an error.
quote:
and mistranslating "Joshua" as "Jesus."
Actually, the KJV translators were scrupulous in transliterating names in the Greek New Testament. Transliterating is simply transcribing the Greek word into it's English equivalent. You will find this in the genealogies of Christ, where the names sound awkward because the Hebrew words have not been brought into the translation. But they are perfectly accurate. Thus Joshua is indeed Iesous in the book of Hebrews, which is correctly transliterated as "Jesus", but we know that Joshua is the same as Yeshua or Jehoshua. Joshua had the same name as Yeshua (Jesus) but in this context it does create confusion.
quote:
One has to choose to ignore those obvious errors to hold to either "perfect" or "inspired."
Nobody in their right mind claims "inspiration" for a translation, but of all the English translations currently in vogue, the KJV is the most faithful, reliable and trustworthy. Other Reformation Bibles are also in the same league, but God chose the KJV to become the predominant English Bible for at least 300 years. And He did indeed guide the translators since this Bible became a classic in it's own right, and actually molded the English language (according to scholars of English literature).
quote:
And I seriously doubt that there are still millions in the KJVO camp, if there ever were millions.
"Obviously", you know little or nothing about the Trinitarian Bible Society, which has indeed distributed worldwide millions of KJVs and their equivalents in other languages. The TBS is the only Bible society that holds to the conviction that the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Textus Receptus are the most reliable foundations for all Bible, whether the KJV in English or other non-English Bibles.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 10:26:13 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 2400
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
Ezra, or anyone who leans more to the KJVO side of things,
What about unicorns? I've repeatedly asked about the unicorns in the past, but so far, I haven't heard any answer that satisfies.
_____________________________
"To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea."
-G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/1/2009 10:58:22 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1727
Status: offline
|
quote:
What about unicorns?
The use of "unicorn" for the Hebrew word re'em is not necessarily incorrect. The Septuagint translated this into the Greek monokeros (one-horned) and the Latin Vulgate translated it as unicorn.
There was a creature that is now extinct called Elasmotherium (see below), or it could have been a modern rhinoceros, since the descriptions are associated with a wild and ferocious animal. Therefore we don't necessarily have to conclude that this was a mythical beast.
quote:
Elasmotherium or rhinoceros
The elasmotherium: One suggestion is that the unicorn is based on the extinct animal Elasmotherium, a huge Eurasian rhinoceros native to the steppes, south of the range of the woolly rhinoceros of Ice Age Europe. Elasmotherium looked little like a horse, but it had a large single horn in its forehead.
However, according to the Nordisk familjebok (Nordic Familybook) and science writer Willy Ley the animal may have survived long enough to be remembered in the legends of the Evenk people of Russia as a huge black bull with a single horn in the forehead.
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 1:12:22 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 206
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well I hope you are capable of ciphering between the small scattered pieces of the perfect Words of God "throughout the world" so that you are capable of basing your interpretations and doctrines on true Scripture.
I don't think you have to. Since the first century, and perhaps even before that, God's word has been found in more than one version. I have read that there were at least 2 Hebrew versions of the OT and then we have the LXX. The OT quotes in the NT show us varying texts, most are from the LXX and the Hebrew OT that we know, but there are indications of another Hebrew version. And, when Paul writes about the inspiration of scripture, he doesn't tell us to be sure we have the true one.
And, think about it, we know that no two manuscripts match exactly. If the one version only theory were true, than the owner of only one manuscript had the word of God, and the whole rest of the world was out of luck.
Qtman:
quote:
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.
The KJV was not prominent among the Catholic church, and the Church of England was definitely not Catholic. In fact there was a lot of animosity between the Catholic church and the Anglican church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 1:12:45 AM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 2400
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
Ezra,
Two points.
1, the Septuagint, while a good translation, was not inspired. Same with the Vulgate. I'm interested in whether or not unicorn is a good English translation of re'eem, not a Greek or Latin word.
2, you contend that the KJV is the best translation for the modern reader. What do you think the typical modern reader, especially the typical modern unsaved reader, would think when they read "unicorn"?
_____________________________
"To the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sun is really a sun; to the humble man, and to the humble man alone, the sea is really a sea."
-G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 8:23:19 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6344
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2
quote:
Well I hope you are capable of ciphering between the small scattered pieces of the perfect Words of God "throughout the world" so that you are capable of basing your interpretations and doctrines on true Scripture.
I don't think you have to. Since the first century, and perhaps even before that, God's word has been found in more than one version. I have read that there were at least 2 Hebrew versions of the OT and then we have the LXX. The OT quotes in the NT show us varying texts, most are from the LXX and the Hebrew OT that we know, but there are indications of another Hebrew version. And, when Paul writes about the inspiration of scripture, he doesn't tell us to be sure we have the true one.
And, think about it, we know that no two manuscripts match exactly. If the one version only theory were true, than the owner of only one manuscript had the word of God, and the whole rest of the world was out of luck.
Qtman:
quote:
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.
The KJV was not prominent among the Catholic church, and the Church of England was definitely not Catholic. In fact there was a lot of animosity between the Catholic church and the Anglican church.
You may want to read a bit more about the history of the Church of England.
_____________________________
Be what you is and not what you ain't. Cause if you ain't what you is, you is what you ain't. - Jeff Easter
<Me & my happyplate at Lobster Hut
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 10:02:15 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4642
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ezra
quote:
Those errors have been posted repeatedly,
And those allegations of *errors* have also been refuted repeatedly.
The problem is that these refutations always ignore the facts (as evidenced in your responses below).
quote:
quote:
such as the error of "Easter"
The Greek word translated as Easter is pascha, which could also be translated as Passover, and should have been thus translated. However, at the time this translation was made Easter and Passover were celebrated simultaneously, thus an anachronism was introduced into the KJV. But an anachronism is not necessarily an error. Had they put "Pentecost" in place of "Passover" that would certainly be an error.
At the time the KJV was translated, there was NO relationship between Easter and Passover. These celebrations could happen almost a month apart on some occasions. The reality is that Passover is always celebrated in the middle of the month of Nissan on the Jewish (Lunar) calendar which caused it to land on any day of the week on the Calendar used by the KJV translators (not just on Sunday). Also due to the different way the Lunar cycle was dealt with in the Easter calculations, these celebrations would drift around each other from year to year. On some years Easter would come first, and on other years passover would come first.
The confusion of the KJV translators was caused by misunderstanding the writings of the early church (some who did celebrate passover); During the early celebrations of Easter, there were some links to the Jewish calendar i.e. celebrating Easter on the first Sunday AFTER Passover (this continued in the Syrian church); however, this was abandoned in by the Roman church in the 4th century (or 1200+ years before the KJV translators made their mistake. At the time the KJV translators made their translation, Easter and Passover were not even linked on the calendar.
quote:
quote:
and mistranslating "Joshua" as "Jesus."
Actually, the KJV translators were scrupulous in transliterating names in the Greek New Testament. Transliterating is simply transcribing the Greek word into it's English equivalent. You will find this in the genealogies of Christ, where the names sound awkward because the Hebrew words have not been brought into the translation. But they are perfectly accurate. Thus Joshua is indeed Iesous in the book of Hebrews, which is correctly transliterated as "Jesus", but we know that Joshua is the same as Yeshua or Jehoshua. Joshua had the same name as Yeshua (Jesus) but in this context it does create confusion.
There are several problems with this claim:
1) The KJV translators obviously recognized the difference between Jesus and Joshua because they correctly translated the name Joshua (as Joshua) in every OT reference.
2) Their Hebrew names were likely NOT identical. Jesus most likely had the name "ישוע/Y'shua" and Joshua's name was "יהושע/Y'hoshua"
3) Jesus is not a "correct" transliteration of Ἰησοῦς, it is an (incorrect) translation of that name. A correct transliteration would sound close to the original word i.e. "iesous"; the name "Jesus" is the result of a transliteration of a transliteration of a transliteration of a transliteration.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ezra
quote:
What about unicorns?
The use of "unicorn" for the Hebrew word re'em is not necessarily incorrect. The Septuagint translated this into the Greek monokeros (one-horned) and the Latin Vulgate translated it as unicorn.
There was a creature that is now extinct called Elasmotherium (see below), or it could have been a modern rhinoceros, since the descriptions are associated with a wild and ferocious animal. Therefore we don't necessarily have to conclude that this was a mythical beast.
The translation of ראם as "unicorn" is not supported by any Hebrew text and it is just one more indication that some of the KJV translators struggled with Hebrew and Aramaic and relied too heavily on other imperfect translations of the OT (like the Latin Vulgate and/or the Greek Septuagint). A similar example can be seen in Daniel 3:25 where the Aramaic "אלהין/elahin/gods" is translated in the KJV as God. This reading is not found in any Aramaic text of Daniel.
Note: relying too heavily on other translations is not a problem unique to the KJV translators; over reliance on the traditions of the LXX, Vulgate, and KJV can be demonstrated in some verses of modern versions like the NIV, NASB, etc...
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 10:12:35 AM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 123
Joined: 11/13/2008
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.
Fair enough.Thanks, and God bless!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 10:24:21 AM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 123
Joined: 11/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
but this KJV superiority over other translations is bogus
That's fine. We've had the KJV for almost 400 years, half of which it was practically the only REAL translation of Scriptures in the English language, and it never did us wrong. We survived with it for quite some time. I think you should reconsider its superiority. It obviously must be one heck of a translation to have lasted as long as it has.
This obviously doesn't prove its perfection. It's merely a practical observation. But it does make the point that its value and usage is beyond comparison. I don't think that it is as bogus as you think.
I am impressed with the longevity of the KJV, too.However, as you have noted, the fact that the KJV has been around longer doesn't in and of itself make it a better translation than the newer ones.That is the same assumption the guy in the bookstore was making.It truly is one heck of a translation.That does not mean, however, that the other translations are of no value.I know you think the KJV is superior, and that's fine.I have no interest in beating up on the KJV.I myself used it as a young Christian.I just think the same courtesy should be given those who may use a different translation.I know I am preaching to the choir, and I appreciate you giving me the time to state where I'm coming from.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 10:31:04 AM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 123
Joined: 11/13/2008
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.
Good advice.Thanks, WesP!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 11:03:26 AM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 123
Joined: 11/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
With all of these acronyms floating around, KJV, NIV, NASB, KJVO, etc., I think I have figured out what I am. I'm a KJVA.
Ok, I'll bite.What is a KJVA?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 11:11:55 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6344
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
From your posts you may be one also.
King James Version Also.
I N T
_____________________________
Be what you is and not what you ain't. Cause if you ain't what you is, you is what you ain't. - Jeff Easter
<Me & my happyplate at Lobster Hut
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 11:17:40 AM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 123
Joined: 11/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
From your posts you may be one also.
King James Version Also.
I certainly am.Very good, Qtman!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 11:26:47 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 4642
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
From your posts you may be one also.
King James Version Also.
I think I have only encountered one non-KJVO that was not KJVA. Most who reject KJVO'ism still have a great deal of respect for the KJV (and its translators).
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 11:29:28 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6344
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
From your posts you may be one also.
King James Version Also.
I think I have only encountered one non-KJVO that was not KJVA. Most who reject KJVO'ism still have a great deal of respect for the KJV (and its translators).
Oh! I agree completely. I don't think I have ever met a christian person that did not respect the KJV. I certainly do. Else it would not occupy a place in my house.
My KJVA was sorta light hearted and an attempt at humor.
I N T
_____________________________
Be what you is and not what you ain't. Cause if you ain't what you is, you is what you ain't. - Jeff Easter
<Me & my happyplate at Lobster Hut
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 11:47:25 AM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 123
Joined: 11/13/2008
Status: offline
|
Very well said guys.I still find myself quoting from the KJV because I used it for so many years, and it has such a great(almost poetic)flow to it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 11:50:19 AM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6344
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
The problem I have with this debate is the same problem I have with many other debates on the forums. It is with the extremist. Both sides have them. You know the "always" or "never" crowds so to speak. I have not learned much in my 58 years but one thing I have learned is that the truth usually falls somewhere in the middle of those.
I N T
_____________________________
Be what you is and not what you ain't. Cause if you ain't what you is, you is what you ain't. - Jeff Easter
<Me & my happyplate at Lobster Hut
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 12:03:49 PM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 123
Joined: 11/13/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
The problem I have with this debate is the same problem I have with many other debates on the forums. It is with the extremist. Both sides have them. You know the "always" or "never" crowds so to speak. I have not learned much in my 58 years but one thing I have learned is that the truth usually falls somewhere in the middle of those.
I've often said the same thing.I do not dislike the KJV in any way.I just don't use words like "concupiscience" or lasciviousness" very much, and even the meaning of some words(such as "conversation") has changed over the years.I'm not saying it is outdated.I just think that the newer translations speak in a way that is easier to understand.I remember asking the young man in the bookstore if he knew what concupiscience or lasciviousness meant, and he did not.I know you can look them up, but it just seems like it is more helpful if you understand what you are reading.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 1:42:14 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1611
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LetGo2God
quote:
but this KJV superiority over other translations is bogus
That's fine. We've had the KJV for almost 400 years, half of which it was practically the only REAL translation of Scriptures in the English language, and it never did us wrong. We survived with it for quite some time. I think you should reconsider its superiority. It obviously must be one heck of a translation to have lasted as long as it has.
This obviously doesn't prove its perfection. It's merely a practical observation. But it does make the point that its value and usage is beyond comparison. I don't think that it is as bogus as you think.
I am impressed with the longevity of the KJV, too.However, as you have noted, the fact that the KJV has been around longer doesn't in and of itself make it a better translation than the newer ones.That is the same assumption the guy in the bookstore was making.It truly is one heck of a translation.That does not mean, however, that the other translations are of no value.I know you think the KJV is superior, and that's fine.I have no interest in beating up on the KJV.I myself used it as a young Christian.I just think the same courtesy should be given those who may use a different translation.I know I am preaching to the choir, and I appreciate you giving me the time to state where I'm coming from.
No problem LG2G. God bless you!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 1:46:16 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 1611
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I have not learned much in my 58 years but one thing I have learned is that the truth usually falls somewhere in the middle of those.
Boy ain't this true!!! Life would be much simple if Christians lived by this principle.
But I know, you're probably thinkin. "well wait a minute, don't you believe the KJV is perfect and without error? Doesn't that make you part of the 'always' or 'never' crowd?"
I certainly hope not....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 7/2/2009 1:53:09 PM
|
|
|
LetGo2God
Posts: 123
Joined: 11/13/2008
Status: offline
|
No problem LG2G. God bless you!
God bless you too, brother!!
|
|
|
|
 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
