KJV Debate

[Netopia]

Generally, Dave is saying that the KJV is not only a good English translation of the Bible, but is GOD'S English translation of the Bible. If the KJV is God's, then the other versions must be from somewhere else... i.e. the Satanic realm.

What we are argueing is that the ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES were devinely inspired by God and that everything else (in all other languages) are just translations and are neither devine nor perfect.

We've pointed out that the KJV has mistakes in it. We've pointed out that the KJV has some very clear cultural bias from Olde England that does NOT appear in the original Scripture. We've pointed out that the KJV uses much language that is archaic and needs to be updated. We've also said that it is indeed a decent translation, but not the be all end all, God ordained translation that Dave seems to be convinced that it is.

Joe

 

[Polgara]

Um..... Go Dave!

Sarah

 

[petrek]

I would like now to give a quick rundown of my time here on ATOT:

My presence here on atot came about after I was no longer able to endure the sight of such blatently false accusations being made against Christians and their beliefs in one of the "free bible" threads of the hot deals forum. I felt compelled to respond to them and fortunately, I had taken the following week off work to relax, little did I know God had other plans for my time. So I spent my week off surrounded by books on evolution vs creation in an effort to dispell the lies so prevelant in society today. The next thing I knew a few months had passed, and I found myself immersed day and night in thought and study in an effort to dispell the commonly held false beliefs in regards to evolution and simple Doctrinal Truths of Christianity, only to be told (in the end) by my main opposers in the debates (through pms and open admission) that they had no geniune desire to learn and were only interested in disagreeing for the sake of disagreement.

Considering the time and effort I had put into my replies, the reviewing of the evidence, the checking and rechecking of sources to ensure accuracy in said replies, sometimes spending upwards of 15 hours for one post, the wanton disrespect for sincerity that I was ultimately informed of left me with a desire to leave atot never to return. A pm with Linuxboy ensued and I was left with the feeling that the time spent was not totally in vain. I thought (although uneasily) that maybe I was taking myself too seriously and was too concerned with accuracy, after all, when discussing issues with close childhood friends who have yet to accept Christ, or people in general in my day to day dealings, my concern for accuracy while still indeed prevelant is done without the aid of books, or the Bible and so I must needs rely on memory. To the which I decided (against my better judgement) to treat my posts in the same way I would on a day to day basis, to go largely by memory.

The problem of course with that decision, is that the majority of people I deal with on a day to day basis, I will see again. And if as I hope, they look into the matters being discussed for themselves and happen to find something I said to be in error or appear as such, that they will address that matter with me, and I will be able to clarify what I meant, and quite possibly gain some knowledge on the subject to which we discussed. Here in atot that is not so much the case, as I think most people will look at a thread, get a general idea, give their opinion, and move on to another, to the which accuracy in regards to my sources and conclusions is of the utmost concern. It's one thing to make a mistatement when going from memory, it is entirely another to make a mistatement due to laziness (not willing to check with a source you have available in front of you).

Taking this more liberal aproach to my comments here in atot, proved foolish. As the first discussion I got into (after said decision) led my opposer to demand I take a scholarly aproach and respond to accusations in the thread I was in. I made known to him that my views on the subject were easily seen in a number of other threads, he said he had read them, and again insisted that I respond (whether by cutting and pasting, he didn't care) to his false accusations in regards to my stance on the issue in question. (It is to my understanding that if one is going to have a scholarly debate, the least one should do is familiarize oneself with the beliefs of the opposing debater, especially when those beliefs are so easily accessable, but who am I to say, being that I could hardly be considered a scholar.) Needless to say I did cut and paste and recieved no reply, consistent with the other threads wherein I had made that post.

That thread of course settled the issue, accuracy is of the utmost importance. To the which I took a bit of a break from atot and built a new computer from scratch , checking occasionaly at the old threads to see if anyone had responded to my posts.

Feeling rejuvinated, ready to take up the battle (the Good fight) where I left off, I return. Feeling confident that the indivuals in this thread, being that some are most assuredly Saved, will see fit to treat this issue with the honesty and sincerity becoming of a man of integrety and even the more so, of a Saint. And as I noted to Linuxboy, I believe that God will provide me with the strength, patience, wisdom, and knowledge necessary to show to the God fearing individuals involved in this debate, that one can trust whole heartedly in the Authority of Scripture in all matters concerning doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12

Dave


PS I am not afraid of this challenge which confronts me, God led me out of the spiritual darkness of Catholocism unto Salvation. Immediatly following my Salvation, having nowhere to turn for guidance on spiritual matters (and a great desire to get to know my new found Lord and Savior) I turned to the only thing I knew I could count on to give me the Truth, the Bible (the word of God). And what did God say, "some manuscripts say this". I beg to differ, Satan says "some manuscripts say this", God says "Thus sayeth the LORD". My God is not a wishy washy God, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. That one simple statement however, led me into 5 or so years of backsliding. Whereupon I found myself day after day staring into empty brown bottles and bubbling bongs (desiring to die) having lost the Joy of my Salvation. To the which God saw fit to Save (what had been) a good and trusted friend of mine (who I hadn't spoken to for a few years) so that through his willful obedience to God, I could be lead out of the valley of darkness and back into the Light. My friend's stumbling block, can God be trusted (which of all the Bible versions can be relied upon as the Authoritative word of God, if any). The willingness of my friend to act as an empty vessel for the Lord is what allows me to have the renewed friendship with Jesus Christ that I enjoy today. So if you find me unwilling to surrender my Bible (and the Authority therewith) so that the unsaved and the slothful can have a Bible of their own, your findings are well founded.
If Noah could withstand the jeers, scoffs, and false accusation of all but 7 other individuals on the earth at that time for the hundred years it took him to build the ark, surely I can withstand and perservere through this challenge He has placed in front of me, as it pales in comparison to what others have endured for the Faith, others who's walks I can't even begin to compare mine to.


...and now on to the debate at hand.

 

[Netopia]

<< ...God led me out of the spiritual darkness of Catholocism unto Salvation. >>

Well, I can appreciate that. I was saved in the Catholic church but wasn't fed. What I gained by leaving the RC, in addition to being able to turn to the Bible for truth, was the freedom given by Christ and not having to live under all sorts of regulation that Christ never taught.

Gone were the man made rules.... one of which was that I had to use the "official Bible". It would seem that not everyone is yet delivered from this oppression.

Joe

 

[Rio Rebel]

petrek,

Would it be too much to ask for you to refrain from Catholic-bashing at Anandtech? Not all of us were given the divine message that you were, telling you that we are satanic and spiritually dark.

Until that blessed time when we can join you in your wisdom, it would be really polite and considerate for you to NOT characterize our religious belief like that.

If you find it in your heart to do so, I will continue to avoid unleashing my feelings about your religious views, from which *I* was "liberated" some time ago.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

My boss at work says the KJV is perfect in every way. Seeing as how he has never been right about anything in his life, even by accident, I must therefore conclude that it is imperfect.

 

[petrek]

Athanasius

"Although the unbelief of the Jews and their consequent hostility deprived the Church for a time of the Hebrew Old Testement and of the benefits of Hebrew scholarship, still the providence of God did not permit that the Old Testament Scriptures should ever be taken away wholly from His believing people. Even before the coming of Christ God had brought into being the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament translation which was to serve the Church as a temporary substitute until such a time as the ancient Hebrew Bible could be restored to her. According to tradition, this translation was made at Alexandria for the library of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, by a delegation of seventy Jewish elders, hence the name Septuagint (Seventy). According to Irwin (1949), however, and other modern scholars, the Septuagint was not produced in any such official way but arose out of the needs of the Alexandrian Jews. The Pentateuch, it is said, was translated first in the 3rd century B. C., the other Old Testament books following later. From Alexandria the use of the Septuagint rapidly spread until in the days of the Apostles it was read everywhere in the synagogues of the Greek-speaking Jews outside of Palestine. Then, at length, converts from these Greek-speaking synagogues brought their Septuagint with them into the Christian Church.

When one studies the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, one is struck by the inspired wisdom which the Apostles exhibited in their attitude toward the Septuagint. On the one hand, they did not invariably set this version aside and make new translations from the Hebrew. Such an emphasis on the Hebrew would have been harmful to the gentile churches which had just been formed. It would have brought these gentile Christians into a position of dependence upon the unbelieving Jewish rabbis, on whose learning they would have been obliged to rely for an understanding of the Hebrew Old Testament. But on the other hand, the Apostles did not quote from the Septuagint invariably and thus encourage the notion that this Greek translation was equal to the Hebrew Old Testament in authority. Instead, they walked the middle way between these two extremes. Sometimes they cited the Septuagint verbatim, even when it departed from the Hebrew in non-essential ways, and sometimes they made their own translation directly from the Hebrew or used their knowledge of Hebrew to improve the rendering of the Septuagint.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews there are three Old Testament quotations which have been the subject of much discussion. The first of these is Heb. 1:6, 'And let all the angels of God worship Him.' This clause is found in Manuscript B of the Septuagint as an addition to Deut. 32:43. On this basis the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has often been accused of citing as Scripture a verse not found in the Hebrew Bible. The text of the Septuagint, however, is not certain at this point. Manuscript A reads, 'And let all the angels of God give them (Him) strength', and this is the reading adopted by Rahlfs (1935), one of the most recent editors of the Septuagint. If the reading of A is correct, then the text of B must have been changed at this point to agree with Heb. 1:6, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews could not be quoting it. He may have had Deut. 32:43 in mind, but the passage which he was actually citing was Psalm 97:7, which is found both in the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Septuagint and which reads (in the Septuagint), 'worship Him all ye His angels'.

The second Old Testament quotation causing difficulty is Heb. 10:5, 'Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me'. This is a quotation from Psalm 40:6 and is found in this form in the majority of the manuscripts of the Septuagint. The Hebrew text, however, reads 'Mine ears hast Thou opened' instead of 'but a body hast Thou prepared Me'. Because of this the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has been accused also of using a mistranslation of the Hebrew text as a support for the Christian doctrine of Christ's atoning death. But this is not a necessary conclusion. For in Psalm 40 and in Heb. 10 the emphasis is not so much on the sacrifice of the Christ's body as on Christ's willing obedience which made the sacrifice of His body effective. Because of this emphasis the inspired author of Hebrews was justified in regarding the Septuagint as sufficiently accurate to express this central meaning of the passage. The opening of Christ's ears to make Him an obedient servant he considered to be the first step in the preparation of Christ's body for 'His obedient sacrifice'.

The third Old Testament quotation to present a problem is Heb. 11:21. 'By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshiped, leaning upon the top of his staff'. This is usually thought to be a reference to Gen. 47:31, where the Hebrew text and the Septuagint differ, the former stating that Jacob 'bowed himself upon the bed's head', the latter that he 'bowed himself on the top of his staff'. This difference is attributable to the fact that in Hebrew the words 'bed' and 'staff' are the same except for their vowel points, so that 'bed' could easily be mistaken for 'staff' and vice versa. It is usually said that Heb. 11:21 follows the Septuagint reading of Gen. 47:31, but this too is not a necessary conclusion, since actually Heb. 11:21 refers not to Gen. 47:31 but to Gen. 48:1-22. Here Jacob sat, apparently, on the edge of his bed and may very well have had a staff in his hand." The King James Version Defended, Edward F. Hills, 1996, pages 93-95 (commentary in original)

Dave

 

[petrek]

This is basically the stance I take in regards to this issue:

"Do we believing Bible Students "worship" the King James Version? Do we regard it as inspired, just as the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo (d. 42 A.D.) and many early Christians regarded the Septuagint as inspired? Or do we claim the same supremacy for the King James Version that Roman Catholics claim for the Latin Vulgate? Do we magnify its authority above that of the Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testament Scriptures? We have often been accused of such excessive veneration for the King James Version, but these accusations are false. In regard to Bible versions we follow the example of Christ's Apostles. We adopt the same attitude toward the King James Version that they maintained toward the Septuagint.

In their Old Testament quotations the Apostles never made any distinction between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures. They never said, "The Septuagint translates this verse thus and so, but in the original Hebrew it is this way." Why not? Why did they pass up all these opportunities to display their learning? Evidently because of their great respect for the Septuagint and the position which it occupied in the providence of God. In other words, the Apostles recognized the Septuagint as the providentially approved translation of the Old Testament into Greek. They understood that this was the version that God desired the gentile Church of their day to use as its Old Testament Scripture.

In regard to Bible versions, then, we follow the example of the Apostles and the other inspired New Testament writers. Just as they recognized the Septuagint as the providentially appointed translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, so we recognize the King James Version and the other great historic translations of the holy Scriptures as providentially appointed English Bible. Admittedly this venerable version is not absolutely perfect, but it is trustworthy. No Bible-believing Christian who relies upon it will ever be led astray. But it is just the opposite with modern versions. They are untrustworthy, and they do lead Bible-believing Christians astray." The King James Version Defended, Edward F. Hills, 1996, pages 229, and 230 (commentary in original)

Dave

 

[petrek]

Maetryx

"6,000-10,000 year old universe"; false, I believe the universe is about 6,000 years old in accordance with the word of God.

"name it, claim it (doctrine of speaking wealth and other blessings into existence)"; false

"dinosaur fossils... God's practical joke on mankind"; false, read Job

"A cash offering to God will miraculously return to the giver 100-fold"; false, God is not my servant, I am His.

"pre-millenial rapture"; I believe in a pre-tribulation rapture.

"You can be saved, and then lost, then re-saved, then lost
because of that you have to ask for forgiveness all the" "time"; false, one can not lose their Salvation.

"and if you jump off the WTC because you're on fire you go to hell because you can't properly ask forgiveness after you commit the sin of suicide"; Not necessarily. (Edit: Consider Samson)

"We're one of the King's Kids, and we deserve special blessings"; I am a child of God's, and He alone decides what to bless me with.

"Dungeons & Dragons and Proctor & Gamble are both Satanic"; All worldly things are Satanic, being that Satan is the god of this world.

"Rock & Roll makes demons come out of your speakers because of a secret witch ritual performed over the master recording"; Demons are everywhere to begin with, rituals are not needed.

"The Bible is not to Inform, the Bible is to Transform"; Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, and all scripture is given by God for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.

"The KJV is the only infallible english translation"; I agree, and will add, the KJV is the providentially preserved, infallible, verbally inspired word of God in the english language.

Dave

 

[petrek]

Athanasius, in addition to what I said earlier on one's understanding of words used in the KJV let me also add to your statement:

" Does that mean that unicorns existed in ancient Israel? No. Because the creature referred to was not known in the Grek speaking world, the Hebrew was mistakenly translated into "monokeros" and eventually into the Latin versions and the KJV. But it is an obvious error, one that modern archaeology and research (with its discoveries of ancient near eastern fauna) cleared up."

I am of the belief that archaeology is still ongoing, and almost assuredly at a greater pace than ever before. So to suggest that things of an archaeological nature have been "cleared up" is most assuredly not the case.

Dave

 

[Athanasius]

petrek:

Just as they recognized the Septuagint as the providentially appointed translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, so we recognize the King James Version and the other great historic translations of the holy Scriptures as providentially appointed English Bible. Admittedly this venerable version is not absolutely perfect, but it is trustworthy. No Bible-believing Christian who relies upon it will ever be led astray.

Well petrek, the whole tenor of that post strikes me as conveying a different attitude than what you seemed to me to be suggesting earlier in the thread. I agree that the KJV is trustworthy, and have said several times that I think it is the single best English translation available to people today.

But language does change, and the KJV translators were biased at times. You say

<< A word that is EXACTLY the same would be the SAME word >>

Yet I gave you specific instances where the KJV did not translate the exact Greek word with the exact English word. They were, at times, biased.

I also understand that modern translators are just as biased to the critical text as King James only people are to the TR. But there are places where the critical text agrees with the Majority or Byzantine text against Erasmus' TR.

But "admittedly this venerable version is not absolutely perfect" seems to me a significant shift in stance from your earlier statement that the King James Version is God's infallible translation into the English language.

 

[petrek]

"<< A word that is EXACTLY the same would be the SAME word >>

Yet I gave you specific instances where the KJV did not translate the exact Greek word with the exact English word."

Anathasius, consider than the fact that Theasauruses and Dictionaries are not figments of man's imagination, but are in fact real, a fact which you would have me believe is false.

"But "admittedly this venerable version is not absolutely perfect" seems to me a significant shift in stance from your earlier statement that the King James Version is God's infallible translation into the English language."

Take a look at my earlier post to JohnnyReb, wherein I made clear that that was not my contention. My contention is that one can TRUST FULLY in the KJV and that it represents the providentially preserved, verbally inspired, infallible word of God in the english language. Something that can not be said for the other versions.

Dave

 

[petrek]

"As an example:

Let's take a look at the Book of Isaiah Ch. 37. Ahaz is told to ask for a sign, but he refuses. God says that he will give him a sign. An almah (Heb. adjective fem. sing.) will give birth to a son and call his name Immanuel. An almah is never married in scripture and so this pregnancy of an unmarried woman caused by divine intervention must be a virginal conception.

The question is asked as to why Isaiah did not use the word Betulah which has long been thought to be a virgin instead of the word almah - an unmarried woman. Jews in particular have used this to attack the Christian understanding of this prophecy pointing to Christ.

Well, there is in fact no Hebrew word that denotes a Virgo Intacta. The study by Wenham (Gordon Wenham, "Betulah 'A Girl of Marriageable Age'" Vetus Testamentum 22 1972 326-348) is groundbreaking in refuting this claim. The LXX, Ugaritic, and Aramaic text all support the translation of betulah as a girl of marriageable age. Note especially the use of betulah in Deut 22:13-21, where the betulim offered as proof against the husbands accusation isn't proof of virginity, but rather her menstruating regularly when was betrothed to the man making the accusation. How could the girls? parents provide proof of her virginity? They are not in possession of the remnants of the marriage bed. They are, however, in possession of evidence of her monthlies.

Also look at Joel 1:8. "Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth." Here betulah is translated virgin, when it makes no sense. Why would a virgin lament the husband of her youth? But, a wife still in the 'flower of her womanhood', still menstruating, would lament the loss of the husband of her youth.

OK. What's my point. The KJV (as well as others) translate betulah as virgin, when we know for certain that betulah means a woman of marriageable age. The Word of God is perfect, in this case the Massoretic Text (Hebrew OT), but the KJV is not."

John, I must be missing something.

Isaiah 7:14 (not 37, took a couple reads to realize you couldn't have meant 37-to the trusty Concordance) replacing "virgin" with "unmarried woman"

'Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, an unmarried woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel'

(That rendering would imply the Lord is working overtime providing signs in this day and age)


"Deut 22:13-21, where the betulim offered as proof against the husbands accusation isn't proof of virginity, but rather her menstruating regularly when was betrothed to the man making the accusation. How could the girls? parents provide proof of her virginity? They are not in possession of the remnants of the marriage bed. They are, however, in possession of evidence of her monthlies."

<-- Dave throws up his hands, WHAT? Only virgins menstruate????


"Also look at Joel 1:8. "Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth." Here betulah is translated virgin, when it makes no sense. Why would a virgin lament the husband of her youth? But, a wife still in the 'flower of her womanhood', still menstruating, would lament the loss of the husband of her youth."

'Lament like a girl of marriageable age girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth'

What's the diff?

Here's what Mathew Henry says on this verse:

"as a virgin laments the death of her lover, to whom she was espoused, but not completely married, yet so that he was in effect her husband" Volume 2 page 1345

(Keep in mind the verse is exempliary)

Dave

 

[Spendthrift]

mad props to athanasius, johnnyreb, linuxboy, petrek, and the host of others who have contributed to this discussion. your research and learning are well above mine.

without a doubt this is the most informative and enlightening discussion i have read on AT ever.

it has been truly a blessing to follow the discussion as it has helped me reach conclusions about my beliefs on the accuracy and infallibility of God's Word.

i trust the Lord will bless all of you and continue to build you up in the knowledge of Him.

keep it up!

 

[petrek]

(Cheers Spendthrift, glad you've gained some knowledge)

"I think that Petrek's reasons go deeper than simple conviction. I would wager that he goes to an extremely KJV centered congregation and would risk being ridiculed and even removed from the church if he were to espouse any other version as less than satanic in nature. I could be wrong.... but I'm guessing I'm not.

Joe"

Joe, guess again. If one has to check his mind at the door, he has become a member of a cult.


<--Dave hasn't regularily attended church since leaving the Catholic church about 11 years ago. (Dave aknowledges his error and has been exhorted in longsuffering of doctrine to correct it by one of the members of the Bible study who (lives 45 minutes away and) goes to a church about an hour and a half away, and have had to change churches a few times over the last couple of years because of the willful comprimise to the Truth those churches have agreed to in the name of "peace, love, and members at any cost", Dave is reminded of God's question "when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8) Dave listens to Dr Mcgee's sermons on radio, and attends a small Bible study (3-5 people), much like the churches of old, where 2 or more people are gathered in my name there I AM, and as a friend believes, like the churches of the near future.

Dave wished there was a Church nearby which held to the belief that the KJV is the providentially preserved, verbally inspired, infallible word of God in the english language, and to the simple (and infinitely complex, due to the Author's infinite Wisdom and Knowledge) Gospel of Christ, the self same Gospel of which is said "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ." Galations 1:8-10.

Dave did attend a nearby church with a friend he believes is Saved in an effort to correct the err, but was physically sickened by the putrid sermon being preached. Dave can't understand why no one got up and left during the sermon, being that the message was so obviously Satanic in nature. Dave is extremely saddened by the rampant apostacy that exists in Christiandom today.

Dave's reasons are a matter of simple conviction. Simple conviction (like that of a child) are as deep as it gets.

(Hope you didn't wager much Joe )

Dave

 

[petrek]

Maetryx

"There is also no doubt in my mind that that perservation is NOT embodied by the KJV, but by the presence of ancient manuscripts and Christian linguists."

That's like saying, "I'll give you a book, but I won't tell you where it is", where's the logic in that??

Dave

 

[Spendthrift]

Dave,

this is not a personal attack, i merely have some questions for you. i pray that you will recieve it in the humble spirit it is intended.

1.

<< admittedly this venerable version is not absolutely perfect >>

(in reference to the KJV).



<< held to the belief that the KJV is the providentially preserved, verbally inspired, infallible word of God >>

(emphasis mine)

what do you mean by infallible. above you admit that it is not absolutely perfect and then claim it to be infallible.



<< in·fal·li·ble adj. >>




<< Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information. >>

(from dictionary.com)

so how can it not be absolutley perfect yet infallible?

2.

<< But it is just the opposite with modern versions. They are untrustworthy, and they do lead Bible-believing Christians astray. >>



you agree with this statement and earlier imply that other versions are satanic since result from the

<< purposeful and Satanic deception of Westcott and Hort, who created the new "original" Greek manuscript from corrupt manuscripts. >>



so my question is why are they untrustworthy and how do they lead Bible-believing Christians astray?

i have found that my NIV and NASB preach the same gospel as the KJV (albeit with slightly different wording). they still preach the gospel of Christ being born fully God yet fully man, living a perfect life and dying on a cross for our sins in order that we may be redeemed and restored unto a right relationship with God, also that we must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved and that only through Him are men saved. when all is said in done, how are Bible believing Christians led astray?

secondly the KJV

<< is not absolutely perfect >>

and the NIV and NASB are not absolutely perfect either. one would therefore assume that the best version is the one that makes the Bible most accessible to a particular individual while not compromising God's revelation. it would seem to me that any of these three versions would fit the bill.

however, you obviously feel differently so please feel free to point out where my logic differs from yours.

thanx for your time

Spendthrift <--- always looking for food for thought

 

[Rio Rebel]

<< Dave did attend a nearby church with a friend he believes is Saved in an effort to correct the err, but was physically sickened by the putrid sermon being preached. Dave can't understand why no one got up and left during the sermon, being that the message was so obviously Satanic in nature. Dave is extremely saddened by the rampant apostacy that exists in Christiandom today. >>



Rio hopes Dave is never allowed to own a firearm.

 

[Athanasius]

<< Anathasius, consider than the fact that Theasauruses and Dictionaries are not figments of man's imagination, but are in fact real, a fact which you would have me believe is false. >>



petrek, that is an absurd statement. It is nonsensical. Trust me, I do not want you to believe that a thesaurus or a dictionary is a figment of man's imagination.

Once again, please define what you mean by "infallible."


Let me aske you a very direct question: is it your belief that I, by critiiquing the KJV, am simply a mouthpiece of Satan in this thread?

 

[Polgara]

BTW, I am still on Dave?s side.

KJV Rules!

(I was going to get a bible yesterday, but they are sooo expensive. You?d think they?d want people to have one.)


Ok, Let?s say that the word of God in English is the KJV. Does God preserve his word in every language? I was reading about the translation into Pidgin (the language of Papua New Guinea). Since they don?t know sheep, the translators picked another animal that served a similar function on the island, but lead to some weird reading. ?Behold the pig of God that takes away the sin of the world?. ?Lead like a pig to the slaughter.? Is this, then, the preserved word of God in Pidgin? I am sure they used the new satanic original languages for the translation.

Or, is there something special about English-speaking countries? Some guy on the radio says that we are really Israel?!? What?s up with that?

Why don?t the Papua New Guineans get a good Bible?

Sarah <== still on Dave?s side

 

[PlatinumGold]

Sarah

i think most of us here, myself included, prefer the KJV. Is it however the infallible Word of GOD? that seems to be debateable.

your point of pidgin is a good one. There are several aspects of that also when translated into Korea. When translating a bible into Korea, should you translate from the KJV or the best available manuscripts?

also, in Korean, the word Bread is translated into the Korean word for Bread, should it be translated into Rice which is considered synonymous w/ daily food where bread isn't in Korean?

 

[Netopia]

<< (Hope you didn't wager much Joe ) >>

Joe stands....well... sits.... corrected! Sorry.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

<< (I was going to get a bible yesterday, but they are sooo expensive. You?d think they?d want people to have one.) >>

Believe it or not, most Dollar Stores sell Bibles. If you are just looking for a cheap (in terms of physical quality) Bible to look over, that would be a great place. In fact.... it's also a good place to get Bibles for studying and marking up with your own notes about thing (personal revelations, lessons learned...etc) because they are so cheap.

It's a shame that in a country that has the Word so available, so few people make an effort.

Joe

 

[Netopia]

<< Why don?t the Papua New Guineans get a good Bible? >>

Papua New Guinea is made up of horrendously mountainous jungle terrain. Even neighboring villages are remote to each other. Because of that, there are litterally dozens (maybe hundreds) of different languages spoken in Papua New Guinea. It IS one of the spots where there is a fair bit of linguistic work going on, but with that many variations it will take a long time. Remember, many tribal languages don't have any written language... so, when a missionary goes in he must learn the language and the culture... invent an alphabet and codify the grammar and then teach some people to read and write before any significant work can be accomplished in the actual translating of the Scripture into that language.

Joe

 

[petrek]

Sarah

"(I was going to get a bible yesterday, but they are sooo expensive. You?d think they?d want people to have one.)"

Either the Dollar store as Joe suggests, or the self help.


"Ok, Let?s say that the word of God in English is the KJV. Does God preserve his word in every language? I was reading about the translation into Pidgin (the language of Papua New Guinea). Since they don?t know sheep, the translators picked another animal that served a similar function on the island, but lead to some weird reading. ?Behold the pig of God that takes away the sin of the world?. ?Lead like a pig to the slaughter.? Is this, then, the preserved word of God in Pidgin? I am sure they used the new satanic original languages for the translation."

I'm led to believe, NO. That the attributes of a pig, and those of a sheep are different enough that to refer to Christ as the pig of God doesn't make sense. (While reading up on something the other day I came across a list of a number of different languages the Bible has been preserved in, the more notable one of course, is Luther's german Bible)

"Or, is there something special about English-speaking countries? Some guy on the radio says that we are really Israel?!? What?s up with that?"

That is one of the heresies being taught rampantly today. Israel is Israel, we are the Church.

"Why don?t the Papua New Guineans get a good Bible?"

Joe speaks well to the great effort in such a cause.

Dave