RE: The KJV Only Debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Bible



Message

GrahamCracker -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (7/20/2009 7:38:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComyndeComines

Larry.
Yep. I have a deep respect for the honestly and scholarship of Dr.Wallace. He is indeed a believing scholar.
As far as the autographs go, I personally think he stretched it a bit. Why would not a church keep the original of an epistle or Gospel till it just wore out? Religious devotion and human nature being what it is, I think this better states the case than that by Dr. Wallace.

The reason he gave is that the materials and climate simply would not permit the autographs for lasting very long. It would seem to me that if he is right it doesn't matter what degree of devotion the early church had, they could not be preserved.

quote:

Do you think there was a Q behind the Synoptics? I used to think so, but now am not so adamant about that? I am beginning to think that Revelation may have been written earlier than 98 +/- (under the persecution of Domitian) and probably under the Neronian persecution in the later 60's.

In all of my study since 1965, I have yet to find any evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or any other NT author had a copy of KJV in their hand with an urim and thummin to write the autographs (grin)!

anyway,
Comyn

I tend to think so but I haven't done more than reflect on it when I have considered the issues of phrasing. Perhaps you have heard of the claim for Aramaic originals of books like Matthew. Some of the arguments seem compelling but they seem to me that the data may suggest the existence of a Q-Matthew also.

For example a number of puzzling variants can be explained by similar words in Aramaic. Words that are not that difficult the differentiate in Greek are so similar in Aramaic that a small letter is all that is different. Since we have no Aramaic original, it is possible that Matthew wrote a rough draft in Aramaic and either destroyed it or that he wrote in Greek while thinking in Aramaic. There are a number of possibilities.

Another thing I know about is that there are a couple of word plays in John 3 during the interplay between Nicodemus and Jesus. Since the same word plays probably do not exist in Aramaic, the conversation either took place in Greek (so says a professor in a university in Austin, TX) or John did a bit of pre-editing---hence a Q-John. I tend to think that John's record is essentially a close paraphrase or nearly quoted and the conversation took place in Greek. Obviously, either conclusion must accept certain premises that would be difficult or impossible to prove conclusively. But there you have my thoughts.



ComyndeComines -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (7/21/2009 12:26:49 PM)

Phyl,
This is a good question:"How would we know an autograph is really an autograph?"
The style of the Koine Greek would probably be all in caps-called UNCIALS. The age of the parchment or vellum could be dated by experts. Then the NT Scholars familiar with each NT author, could assess the language used, words chosen, and the general style. Have you read Carsten Thiede's work WITNESS TO THE GOSPEL? It is about the so-called Magdalen Papyrus. It is dismissed by many as it calls into questions some of the assumptions of the higher critics: Q, Synoptic problem, etc. I am neutral about Thiede's proposed Papyrus fragment, but I must say he has one thing the higher critics do not have-a piece of papyrus evidence!

Oh well, the best the KJVOers can do is to make pronouncements and condemn those who use and promote other translations as under the sway of the Devil. I think the Devil likes the KJV a lot, as it continues to confuse people.

Oh well!
Comyn



phyl2 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (7/21/2009 4:52:13 PM)

Yeah, I know they would examine the writing style and test the age of the papyrus, parchment or vellum, but even then, that would not indicate whether the manuscript was the original, or one that was copied "later that day".

I haven't read Theide's book, but I've heard of the papyrus. At the very least, you could say that it is interesting!



GrahamCracker -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (7/21/2009 5:19:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComyndeComines

Phyl,
This is a good question:"How would we know an autograph is really an autograph?"
The style of the Koine Greek would probably be all in caps-called UNCIALS.


quote:

ORIGINAL: phyl2

Yeah, I know they would examine the writing style and test the age of the papyrus, parchment or vellum, but even then, that would not indicate whether the manuscript was the original, or one that was copied "later that day".

I haven't read Theide's book, but I've heard of the papyrus. At the very least, you could say that it is interesting!


I did consider the point Phyl raised. If we had two documents that were both very early, (say 110 A.D.), how would we tell it from something originally penned by an apostle. My answer is that we couldn't, apart from my agreement with Dr. Wallace that it couldn't endure anyway.

I guess I should add that the earliest manuscripts came from dry climates like deserts. That should eliminate the likelihood that an apostle penned them. They would have been distributed in places of high population density, and read by many people to the degree that they couldn't survive.



ComyndeComines -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (7/21/2009 7:44:39 PM)

Larry,
I wrote a long post addressing a lot of the issues you raised. We are not in total disagreement. However, there have been some possible or probable papyri fragments of Mark found in a Qumran cave. Now that has to be before or at 70 AD at the latest. The Roman-Jewish War lasted from about AD 66- AD70. The Essenes ceased to exist at least by 70 Ad, as they sided with the Jewish Zealots against the Romans. Now if we do find fragments of a Gospel before 70 AD, that pushes things back a little I am NOT saying they are originals by any means, but it leaves the door open for the possibility of such an event. If we found a Pauline epistle with 2 different styles of Greek or a signature written in larger letters ( as Paul indicated). He did use Tertius as a secretary, and signed a lot of the letters himself.

As far as Matthew goes, there may have been an Aramaic original, or at least written in an Aramaic manner or style. The Ebionites continued being Jewish Christians and never gave up the Law. They even said that Gentiles must become Jews first. After the destruction of Jerusalem, they were scattered and never became or remained a viable religious movement. Now a rabbi claimed to have a copy of a Hebrew or Aramaic Gospel of Matthew, and it has been heavily edited to have a Hebrew bias. Now there is an Ebionite Church (check out the Web), and they claim that this is the true Gospel of Jesus. I am not sure if these Ebionites are the same as the original group, but they claim to be.

Now back to KJV Onlyism, they just have a circular argument going on, provable only to themselves The KJV is the Only Word of God because the Word of God is the KJV. That is a very simplistic way of looking at it, but true in my estimation.

Comyn



GrahamCracker -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (7/21/2009 8:02:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComyndeComines

Larry,
I wrote a long post addressing a lot of the issues you raised. We are not in total disagreement. However, there have been some possible or probable papyri fragments of Mark found in a Qumran cave. Now that has to be before or at 70 AD at the latest. The Roman-Jewish War lasted from about AD 66- AD70. The Essenes ceased to exist at least by 70 Ad, as they sided with the Jewish Zealots against the Romans. Now if we do find fragments of a Gospel before 70 AD, that pushes things back a little I am NOT saying they are originals by any means, but it leaves the door open for the possibility of such an event. If we found a Pauline epistle with 2 different styles of Greek or a signature written in larger letters ( as Paul indicated). He did use Tertius as a secretary, and signed a lot of the letters himself.


Yes. I remember hearing about the Mark fragment. One of Lee Strobel's scholars in one of his books mentions it. I believe it was identified by a Roman Catholic scholar. While I hope that it was truly a fragment of Mark, we are not certain of it. I guess I would rather err on the side of caution rather than claim to an atheist that we have something from the first century and to be discovered wrong.

The date of 70 A.D. is correct as I understand it. That it is a part of one of the gospels, I believe the jury is still out the last I heard.

quote:

As far as Matthew goes, there may have been an Aramaic original, or at least written in an Aramaic manner or style. The Ebionites continued being Jewish Christians and....<snip>as the original group, but they claim to be.


I have always argued with the pro-Aramaic/pro-Hebrewist people that there is no evidence whatsoever. But I have to agree that from a linguistic standpoint, their view is more than circumstantial. Where they are wanting, in my view, is from an archeological standpoint. Archeologically, they have nothing.

And that brings me full circle to the issue of KJVism. One point that Dr. Wallace made is that no matter which manuscript one prefers, there is an archeological basis for ancient history for most of it. I won't state conclusively about how clear I am of the evidence. I am certainly not as well read as you and Phyl are on this matter.



benelchi -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (7/21/2009 8:05:07 PM)

quote:

Larry,
I wrote a long post addressing a lot of the issues you raised. We are not in total disagreement. However, there have been some possible or probable papyri fragments of Mark found in a Qumran cave.


Almost all DSS scholars reject the identification of anything found at Qumran as being part of Mark. The one fragment in question has only a couple of words and could have been part of almost anything. Those who identify this fragment with Mark are really, really reaching.



GrahamCracker -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (7/21/2009 9:07:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: benelchi

quote:

Larry,
I wrote a long post addressing a lot of the issues you raised. We are not in total disagreement. However, there have been some possible or probable papyri fragments of Mark found in a Qumran cave.


Almost all DSS scholars reject the identification of anything found at Qumran as being part of Mark. The one fragment in question has only a couple of words and could have been part of almost anything. Those who identify this fragment with Mark are really, really reaching.


Reaching? OK. I will take your word for it. As for myself, I only know what I have read. The scholars who truly believe it is Markian (as I recall) do not want to stick their necks out and lose credibility. That is, without substantial proof which we admittedly don't have. I don't remember if you saw my post about Daniel Wallace being at my church Sunday. He said the earliest NT fragment was from John and about 100 A.D. I was sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for him to mention the Markian fragment. He didn't.



ComyndeComines -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (7/21/2009 9:11:19 PM)

I think most of the DSS scholars have a little theological prejudice going on. I know James Tabor a little, and he is quite learned, but his rejection of O'Callahan and Thiede (IMHO) is due to his devotion to the DSS. I am not saying this is the case of all, but some. If O'Callahan and Thiede are right and each one has a papyri to claim, then they MAY have something we need to investigate further. I am no scholar, but have read some in this area. Perhaps both Thiede and O'Callahan do stretch things somewhat.
Comyn



GrahamCracker -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (7/21/2009 9:31:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComyndeComines

I think most of the DSS scholars have a little theological prejudice going on. I know James Tabor a little, and he is quite learned, but his rejection of O'Callahan and Thiede (IMHO) is due to his devotion to the DSS. I am not saying this is the case of all, but some. If O'Callahan and Thiede are right and each one has a papyri to claim, then they MAY have something we need to investigate further. I am no scholar, but have read some in this area. Perhaps both Thiede and O'Callahan do stretch things somewhat.
Comyn


You've peaked my curiosity a little. Exactly what would the Qumran community be doing with a piece of Christian literature? Weren't they some Jewish sect?



ComyndeComines -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (7/22/2009 8:05:05 AM)

As to why Qumran would have Christian Scripture, I do not know. Perhaps the Nazarenes thought that would be a great place to hide some copies of their writings. Maybe they were trying to evangelize Qumran.

I did some more research on O'Callahan and Thiede last night. O'Callahan was a papyrologist and knew his stuff, as he taught at the Pontifical Institute and headed papyri study in other places. Both Gundry and Wallace reject the findings of O'Callahan and therefore Thiede. It all comes down to whether O'Callahan's "NU" is really a "NU". I saw some photographs, and it seems to be that it could go either way. Also, O'Callahan borrowed K. Aland's mega papyri software, and the conclusion was that the papyri can only fit the supposed Mark passage identified by O'Callahan. Wallace disputes this and basically says: "garbage in and garbage out." Wallace thinks that O'Callahan predetermined the results. We may never know. Aland will not add it as a listing of papyri in the Apparatus. Most NT scholars dispute 7Q5 as Markian.

I will stick with the canonical text, and the better translation, based on the best manuscripts and papyri evidence. Right now I am rereading the Bible, and am using the NLT. I have the ESV and my old NIV in the Hebrew-Greek study version. I find the ESV does have some evangelical bias, and deliberately changes the meaning of some words to fit their traditional anti-female in ministry bias.

I found a good site, which I will post their arguments about the KJV. One of the big reasons that KJV is the best is that it was the Bible of the Pilgrims and Puritans. I knew when I read this, that this was an absolute lie or absolute ignorance or both. The Bible of the Pilgrims and Puritans was the Geneva Bible. So that shoots down 1 of their 6 arguments. I'll post on the other 5 later.

Blessings, Comyn



benelchi -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (7/22/2009 12:39:30 PM)

The proposed "Mark" fragment from Qumran (7Q5) is a small fragment that has only fragments of 4 words (not one complete word); the partial words are on a vertical strip showing only one partial word per row. Because of the highly fragmentary nature of this single fragment its association with Mark 6:52-53 is highly disputed. Thiede's work is centered primarily around an entirely different fragmentary manuscript i.e. the Magdalen Papyrus which contain enough text to identify it with the 26th chapter of Matthew. Thiede's book "Eye witness to Jesus" deals entirely with the Magdalen Papyrus and although he mentions the proposed Mark association briefly in his book, he does not discuss the issues surrounding this fragment at all.



ComyndeComines -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (7/22/2009 5:09:47 PM)

Yes, Thiede was more concerned about the Magdalen Papyrus, but did give credence to O'Callahan's work. Thiede pushes Matthew as probably the first Gospel with a fairly early date. 7Q5 is indeed quite small, and both Gundry and Wallace have done their work, and conclude 7Q5 is non- Markan.
Thiede is an interesting person, and had a lot of passion for his work.

Comyn



SamsonUSA -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (8/26/2009 5:17:35 PM)

Good article from James White debunking the KJV only crowd.

http://www.equip.org/articles/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt-



hauhau72 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (9/10/2009 6:33:01 PM)

Interestingly, there is a huge distinction when I read the KJV and other versions. I somehow feel KJV really touches me, kind of like my heart beating by reading the Scriptures, while reading other versions simply make my mind think, without having that "heart-touching" feeling which KJV brings.



phyl2 -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (9/11/2009 12:55:41 AM)

I guess the KJV is the translation God wants you to use then. I have the same experience with some of the newer translations, particularly the NIV.



RavensDesires -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (9/11/2009 1:37:26 PM)

I don't have time to read all 1641 posts above so I may be repeating what someone else has said. I do see where people discuss a lot about the year and time that the KJV was written and how much the English language has changed since then. I agree that the English language has changed because I have seen it just during my 60 years. Many of the slang words start off with strange meanings and then eventually become part of our "normal" language. Different parts of America certainly use words differently. No argument there.

However, I do not want to read a version of the Bible that removes the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ, and other VERY important words. That is nothing but wrong, and plain scary in my opinion. Why would anyone want to remove His precious Holy name out of the very Bible that they read about Him?

I won't argue over words like "mansion" or "place". Things like that. But I will never read a book that removes the name of my Savior, who died a horrible death on the cross to save me from eternal damnation in a burning Hell. Can you even comprehend how that offends Jesus and God?

I am not educated or even super intelligent, but I have never had a problem understanding the King James Version. It isn't difficult to understand with prayer and devotion. Anyone who says that they can not understand the KJV are counting themselves short and not giving themselves credit - or God for that matter.

As the old saying goes: If it ain't broken, don't fix it. The KJV wasn't and isn't broken. We need no other versions.



MrFribbles -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (9/11/2009 3:58:13 PM)

quote:

However, I do not want to read a version of the Bible that removes the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ, and other VERY important words. That is nothing but wrong, and plain scary in my opinion. Why would anyone want to remove His precious Holy name out of the very Bible that they read about Him?


Can you give specific examples where the name of Jesus is removed from other versions?

quote:

I am not educated or even super intelligent, but I have never had a problem understanding the King James Version.


Did you grow up in the church?

quote:

The KJV wasn't and isn't broken. We need no other versions.


How old is your computer? Or TV? Do you own a CD player?



GrahamCracker -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (9/12/2009 12:24:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RavensDesires

However, I do not want to read a version of the Bible that removes the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ, and other VERY important words. That is nothing but wrong, and plain scary in my opinion. Why would anyone want to remove His precious Holy name out of the very Bible that they read about Him?


That is one of the most slanderous and untrue beliefs circulated among the KJVO advocates. The alleged motive is to downplay or to remove references to Jesus' deity and sacrificial death, to eventually remove all references of them in the Bible.

If that were the motive, then the NIV and NASB translators didn't do a very thorough job because there are plenty of references to those doctrines in the translations.

quote:

I am not educated or even super intelligent, but I have never had a problem understanding the King James Version. It isn't difficult to understand with prayer and devotion. Anyone who says that they can not understand the KJV are counting themselves short and not giving themselves credit - or God for that matter.


Have you ever spent half a class period trying to explain the archaic words and phrases to a group of antsy ten year old boys?

"The wind blows where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof..." (John 3:8)

It's a pretty important chapter don't you think? Do you want the boys reading and studying their Bible lessons at home and getting the understanding before class? Or do you want to try to spend your time explaining archaic words that have no meaning? How do you teach those kids to understand some words that are barely pronounceable for them? Words they never hear anywhere else?

How about the word "let" in the Thessalonians passage "he who letteth will let until..."? How do you explain to someone that the word means exactly opposite from what it appears to say? When you have to explain that the apparent meaning is actually archaic, people are dependent on teachers and preachers for things that they could be discovering for themselves.

quote:

As the old saying goes: If it ain't broken, don't fix it. The KJV wasn't and isn't broken. We need no other versions.


I cannot agree. I cannot count the number of times that I could not understand the context because of the archaic language.



GrahamCracker -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (9/12/2009 2:48:59 PM)

Insofar as the KJV being easily understood, I heard in a sermon by a Bible college educated pastor, my pastor at the time.

The verse is 1 Cor. 16:13

"Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong." The phrase "quit you like men" was interpreted to mean "quit acting like men." I wouldn't be surprised if similar mistakes are being made all of the time because pastors are misreading the archaic language of the KJV.


Here is the same verse in three of several popular English translations in use today.

Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong. (NIV)

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. (NASB)

Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. (ESV)



McFatty -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (10/19/2009 8:54:58 PM)

I have a few questions for King James Only advocates...

What makes the King James version more appropriate for being the final authority or preserved word of God than, say, the Geneva Bible, which was the version brought to the US on the Mayflower?

Where people living before 1611 shielded from the true Word of God?

If KJV is right, and nothing else (including NKJV), why has the KJV changed over time (major and minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1774, 1762, 1769, and 1850), in spelling, grammar, etc? Why does it vary from publisher to publisher, even slightly? Which publisher holds the copyright to the only true word of God?

The King James version has been around for 400 years. The Vulgate was the standard for much longer. Why doesn't it get seniority over the KJV in this battle?

The translators of the KJV translated from original Hebrew and Greek. Why are subsequent translations, even those off the same manuscripts, less accurate in your opinion, considering now people can translate in full lighted rooms onto more reliable canvases.

People are aware that languages change over time. A word might have a different primary meaning now than it did in 1611. Bearing that in mind, if a babe in Christ picked up the KJV and read James 2:3, without any guidance or prior religious teaching, what impression could the phrase "gay clothing" give the reader, as opposed to say the NASB's "fine clothes"?

In Greek, Jesus is referred to as "O Kristos" "Tou Kristou" or "Tou Kriston", all meaning "The Annointed One" or "The Christ" to anyone who speaks a lick of Greek. Why does the King James version refuse to add "the" to "Christ" and never use the phrase "The Christ" in its text?

When Jesus Himself quoted from Scripture (as recorded in the King James Version), His words are the not exactly what they are earlier in the King James Bible. In Luke 4:16-21, Jesus quotes from Isaiah 61:1-2. The quotes do not perfectly match. The same with Luke 10:25-28 quoting from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 26:31 and Mark 14:28 quoting from Zechariah 13:7, Mark 7:6-7 quoting from Isaiah 29:13, and Luke 7:27 quoting from Malachi 3:1. How can you explain this, while staying true to the King James Only (and one true translation only) philosophy?

Were the people before 1611 more undeserving than those soon after of a common language Bible translation? Similarly, are the people living today more undeserving of a common language Bible translation than those in 1611, since the language used in 1611 is quite different than today's English?



Intrepidus -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (10/19/2009 11:27:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: McFatty

I have a few questions for King James Only advocates...

What makes the King James version more appropriate for being the final authority or preserved word of God than, say, the Geneva Bible, which was the version brought to the US on the Mayflower?


Because the King James Bible was good enough for Moses and his apostles. It should be good enough for us!

*cough*

-Intrepidus



Oberdan -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (10/21/2009 8:55:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: McFatty

I have a few questions for King James Only advocates...

What makes the King James version more appropriate for being the final authority or preserved word of God than, say, the Geneva Bible, which was the version brought to the US on the Mayflower?

Where people living before 1611 shielded from the true Word of God?

If KJV is right, and nothing else (including NKJV), why has the KJV changed over time (major and minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1774, 1762, 1769, and 1850), in spelling, grammar, etc? Why does it vary from publisher to publisher, even slightly? Which publisher holds the copyright to the only true word of God?

The King James version has been around for 400 years. The Vulgate was the standard for much longer. Why doesn't it get seniority over the KJV in this battle?

The translators of the KJV translated from original Hebrew and Greek. Why are subsequent translations, even those off the same manuscripts, less accurate in your opinion, considering now people can translate in full lighted rooms onto more reliable canvases.

People are aware that languages change over time. A word might have a different primary meaning now than it did in 1611. Bearing that in mind, if a babe in Christ picked up the KJV and read James 2:3, without any guidance or prior religious teaching, what impression could the phrase "gay clothing" give the reader, as opposed to say the NASB's "fine clothes"?

In Greek, Jesus is referred to as "O Kristos" "Tou Kristou" or "Tou Kriston", all meaning "The Annointed One" or "The Christ" to anyone who speaks a lick of Greek. Why does the King James version refuse to add "the" to "Christ" and never use the phrase "The Christ" in its text?

When Jesus Himself quoted from Scripture (as recorded in the King James Version), His words are the not exactly what they are earlier in the King James Bible. In Luke 4:16-21, Jesus quotes from Isaiah 61:1-2. The quotes do not perfectly match. The same with Luke 10:25-28 quoting from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 26:31 and Mark 14:28 quoting from Zechariah 13:7, Mark 7:6-7 quoting from Isaiah 29:13, and Luke 7:27 quoting from Malachi 3:1. How can you explain this, while staying true to the King James Only (and one true translation only) philosophy?

Were the people before 1611 more undeserving than those soon after of a common language Bible translation? Similarly, are the people living today more undeserving of a common language Bible translation than those in 1611, since the language used in 1611 is quite different than today's English?


Good sir, you hit the nail on the head. The people before 1611 were not shielded from the Word of God thanks to a scholar named William Tyndale. Google him, if you must, he did a translation of the Bible into Old English (what they considered modern English back in the 1500's) and for his efforts to render the Good Book for the common person who weren't educated in Latin or Greek, he was persecuted and burned at the stake by order of the Pope himself back then.

I myself do a powerful lot of research, and knowing that Tyndale could not only read and right both Hebrew and Aramaic fluently, he knew how to speak it as if it was his natural tongue. Not just those two languages either.

The religious scholars who researched and composed the 1611 version referred to Tyndale's work often, but there are major differences. In the post above yours, GrahamCracker listed the various differences in 1 Corinthians Chapter 16 verse 13. What we have here is a long list of imperfect translations done by imperfect people. GrahamCracker also mentioned in yet another post, about his inability to understand the more archaic dialect.

You see, this is what happens when people mis-represent themselves with the Bible, why it was written, and who they are. The Bible was never written as a single book, but many separate books that were decided to be considered holy and put into a single compendium over the centuries. So many have taken from it, put some of their own in, yet nobody ever prays and asks God to clarify the meaning for them, asking what the true intent of that writing was, it's true meaning.

Let's take a look at what Tyndale wrote about that verse, archaic writing, spelling, and all. Research this with me a moment, step by step. That's the first step to the truth through the muddling of imperfect men.

GC already has 4 different renderings above, I'll not repeat them. Here is Tyndale's translation into the Englsih of his time.

13 Watche ye stonde fast in the fayth auyte you lyke men and be stronge.

For pronouncing, say it aloud as it looks, and you'll hear the words a bit better. Notice, there are NO commas in the direct rendering from the original to old english by somebody who was fluent in both.

Said aloud and slowly, it comes out in current spelling: "Watch ye stand fast in the faith ought you like men and be strong."

Sounds confusing, but like any sentence plucked out of a paragraph, a chapter no less, without the context and direction of the subject, it cannot convey the overall meaning in only a small segment. You wouldn't know, reading that alone, that the subject was of an event pertaining to two men, the arrivals of Timotheus and Apollos. The people being addressed were being instructed to not be afraid of Timotheus because he was doing the work of the Lord, and had given the fact that Apollos could only arrive when he was able to.

So the message, the meaning of that phrase, to watch themselves and stand fast in their faith (dutifully) like men and to be strong, was a spiritual pep talk to those who would be seeing these two guys who were to arrive. Old english is full of qualifiers like 'ought', which means an obligation or duty, depending on it's usage. Here, it would be 'duty' due to the syntax of the entire passage. Of course 'ought' was spelled differently, but that is what happens to hundreds of years of language evolution. Heck, go back in time and ask one of them to find you a ****. They'll gather a bundle of sticks and hand it to you, because that was it's meaning.

I myself use the KJV, an older print. Mine was printed in 1945. It's pages are yellowing, but still usable, and closer to what was actually printed then most of the more currently printed KJV bibles yet. In comparing what was written there and Tyndale's original English translation that was used considerable by the men King James commissioned, and praying for clarification when confused, I no longer have a problem understanding a great many things.

I have faith in my Lord Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father, God Almighty. I believe they are whom they are, and what they did for my salvation. The Book is only a tool for providing faith, not proof, for those who feel they need it. Like all tools, they can be misused by well meaning people. As long as you're saved, what does it matter that other people have messed up ideas about what was written? That is their problem, and feel sorry, very sorry for those that have messed up the words from one printing to the next. They have to stand before the Lord and answer to their deeds if souls are lost on their account.

Always, if in doubt or confused, pray for the wisdom to understand, and it will be revealed to you.



McFatty -> RE: The KJV Only Debate (10/21/2009 10:38:59 AM)

Let me clarify by saying I have no problem with the King James version of the Bible. I simply prefer translations in more contemporary dialects. My main disagreement is with the idea that any other translation besides the Authorized King James Version is inherently less accurate and/or not even the Word of God. I've heard preachers refer to other translations with words I wouldn't use to refer to my worst enemies.



Page: <<   < prev  62 63 64 65 [66]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI