Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/7/2008 9:33:45 PM
|
|
|
lmwal931
Posts: 96
Joined: 4/16/2005
Status: offline
|
i like the kjv the best but sometimes another version is clearer. all are good. the nas is also very good. the paraphrase bibles i don't like.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/8/2008 12:55:20 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 247
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I've seen and read on quite a few websites that the NIV translation deleted over 42 verses from the Bible.
I doubt that the count is accurate. There are some verses that are supposedly deleted, but they aren't really. First, they are in the footnotes, and they have been put there because the manuscript evidence led the editors to believe that those verses were not originally part of the Bible.
You have to understand that copying documents by hand is a difficult thing to do. And, in the first centuries, they didn't have comfortable desks and good lighting. To make it even harder, the style of writing in those days was to have all the letters in once case - what we now call capitol letters and there were no spaces between the words.
There are a number of causes of copyist errors. In some cases, one word was put in place of another because the copyist was copying by dictation and wrote a word that sounds similar to the one that was read from the previous manuscript. Another type of error occurs when the copyist reads a phrase from the manuscript, looks to the sheet he is copying on, writes, and then when he looks back at the first manuscript, he looks back to the wrong spot, sometimes because a word has been repeated, or a word ending is similar.
Still another type of error occurs when a person is very familiar with passages of scripture. There are passages in the Bible that are very similar to each other and sometimes a copyist will mistakenly put a phrase from a similar passage into the passage that is being copied. Actually, I have made that kind of mistake myself when writing papers. I've done that when quoting Bible verses, and I did it when I took a class on the writings of C. S. Lewis and needed to quote passages from his books. When proofreading my paper, I found that I had put phrases from another book where something similar was being written into quotes from the book I was writing the paper about.
Some of the so called deleted verses were from this kind of error, where some copyist added a phrase from a similar passage into the passage he was copying.
Still another kind of error occurs when the owner of a manuscript would make notes in the margin of his manuscript, clarifying a passage. Manuscript copyists would also write corrections in the margin when they found errors in their copying. Later copyists might not be sure if the note in the margin is a commentary note or a manuscript correction and so they would copy it into the text in order to not leave out any of God's word.
I think that count of 42 verses might be a little inflated though. There are two whole passages that many scholars believe were added at some later point - part of the last chapter of Mark and the story of the adulterous woman who was brought to Jesus for judgement in the book of John, chapter 8, I believe. The KJVO websites love to claim that these two passages were deleted, but I don't know of a single translation that deleted them. They are usually marked off with something like brackets and then there is a footnote saying some manuscripts did not have this passage. This problem has been known since the 4th century and earlier because in the 4th century, a number of men traveled extensively to check as many manuscripts as they were able and they found the evidence to be such that they could not come to a definitive conclusion.
I think it is dishonest to claim that these passages were deleted when they weren't. And, I think it is honest to mark these two passages in such a way to let people know that they were not found in every manuscript. The person who reads the Bible can then read this and seek the guidance and teaching of the Holy Spirit concerning them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/8/2008 8:47:45 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2050
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JordanW
I've seen and read on quite a few websites that the NIV translation
deleted over 42 verses from the Bible.
Deleted? Or corrected an error, perhaps?
Actually, the NIV is based on newer transcripts, which is why
some passages like Mark 16 do not appear.
However, a note is usually made, like "these verses do not
appear in such and such manuscripts.
Same with John 7:58, I believe.
Good Luck.
The NIV is still one of the most scholarly translations
available in readable language.
And don't be fooled by "meaning for meaning" vs.
"word for word" translations - they are ALL
interpretations by the very fact they are translations.
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/8/2008 8:50:17 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2050
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lmwal931
i like the kjv the best but sometimes another version is clearer.
Sometimes? 
quote:
all are good.
All are not good, depending on what you are doing.
You wouldn't do a word study from The Message, for example.
quote:
the nas is also very good.
I agree. It is my main study Bible, FWIW.
quote:
the paraphrase bibles i don't like.
Not good for the student, but can be very useful
for the new Christian or seeker.
The Message is very good this way.
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/9/2008 1:45:44 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2408
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
The NIV is still one of the most scholarly translations
available in readable language.
And don't be fooled by "meaning for meaning" vs.
"word for word" translations - they are ALL
interpretations by the very fact they are translations.
The NIV is the version I use daily and it is a translation in which I have a great deal of trust, but there really is something to the "meaning for meaning" vs. "word for word" translation debate, and among biblical scholars the benefits and weakness of both styles of translation are recognized. One of the weakness of a "thought for thought" translation is that it does allow greater interpretive freedoms than a "word for word" translation allows. If that interpretation is a valid representation of the text then it brings greater understanding to the English reader, but if it simply reflects a poor understanding of the translator then resulting translation is more likely to obscure a correct understanding of the Scriptures.
Some examples where the NIV interpretations are a little off:
(minor) In Hebrew there is a word for "descendants" i.e. 'toldot'; however, in Ex. 1:5 Moses chose not to use that word but instead described "descendants" in very poetic language. The verse literally reads "and it was all the soul(s) coming out of the loins of Jacob, seventy soul(s)". Versions like the NASB, KJV, NEB, etc.. capture the poetry of this verse; however, the poetic nature of this verse is completely lost in the NIV.
(a little more serious) In Ex. 1 several times the text refers to Pharo's fear of the Israelites being due to the fact that they were growing in number and military might. For some unknown reason the NIV translators choose to ignore the reference to the might and/or power of the Israelites and instead change the text to indicate only their growing number. A quick check of almost any other translation will show the difference in interpretation here.
(a little more serious) The NIV regularly replaces the names of places and people given in the text of the bible with names that are commonly assumed to be references to the same people by another more common name. This is done despite any manuscript evidence to support such a change, and sometimes this is done when the change is still under dispute. A good example is Xerxes in Ester. The text reads Ahasuarus and not Xerxes. While Xerxes is likely to be a another name of Ahasuarus, this link is far from conclusive. If a latter discovery proves this to be in error, then the text of all our NIV bibles will be proven wrong.
There are numerous other examples of similar "interpretations" made by the NIV translators. None are serious compromises to the truth of God's word, but they are interpretive choices of which we should be aware.
Also I do think that it is important to realize that every version of the bible makes similar interpretive choice, but the "word for word" translations do it far less frequently. A couple of examples where almost every major English translations has made interpretive choices that, while valid, do not reflect the underlying original text. In Job 1:5,11 and 2:6,9 each instance of the word "curse" is a translation of the Hebrew word 'BRK' (bless). From the context this is interpreted as a "euphemistic curse"; however, that is an interpretive choice made by these translators, and one that is not completely agreed upon by all scholars. Unfortunately some versions (NIV and NASB in paticular) don't even bother to foot note this!!! Another similar interpretive choice made by most English translations is the translation of "I AM" simply God in Ho. 1:9. The text literally reads "because you are not my people, and I am not 'I AM' to you". This is clearly a reference to Lord God as the 'I AM' of Exodus 3:14. Translating this as simply 'God' is accurate, but really looses the connection this passage has with the Exodus account.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/9/2008 7:41:51 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2050
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
The NIV is the version I use daily and it is a translation in which I have a great deal of trust, but there really is something to the "meaning for meaning" vs. "word for word" translation debate, and among biblical scholars the benefits and weakness of both styles of translation are recognized. One of the weakness of a "thought for thought" translation is that it does allow greater interpretive freedoms than a "word for word" translation allows. If that interpretation is a valid representation of the text then it brings greater understanding to the English reader, but if it simply reflects a poor understanding of the translator then resulting translation is more likely to obscure a correct understanding of the Scriptures.
Some examples where the NIV interpretations are a little off:
(minor) In Hebrew there is a word for "descendants" i.e. 'toldot'; however, in Ex. 1:5 Moses chose not to use that word but instead described "descendants" in very poetic language. The verse literally reads "and it was all the soul(s) coming out of the loins of Jacob, seventy soul(s)". Versions like the NASB, KJV, NEB, etc.. capture the poetry of this verse; however, the poetic nature of this verse is completely lost in the NIV.
(a little more serious) In Ex. 1 several times the text refers to Pharo's fear of the Israelites being due to the fact that they were growing in number and military might. For some unknown reason the NIV translators choose to ignore the reference to the might and/or power of the Israelites and instead change the text to indicate only their growing number. A quick check of almost any other translation will show the difference in interpretation here.
(a little more serious) The NIV regularly replaces the names of places and people given in the text of the bible with names that are commonly assumed to be references to the same people by another more common name. This is done despite any manuscript evidence to support such a change, and sometimes this is done when the change is still under dispute. A good example is Xerxes in Ester. The text reads Ahasuarus and not Xerxes. While Xerxes is likely to be a another name of Ahasuarus, this link is far from conclusive. If a latter discovery proves this to be in error, then the text of all our NIV bibles will be proven wrong.
There are numerous other examples of similar "interpretations" made by the NIV translators. None are serious compromises to the truth of God's word, but they are interpretive choices of which we should be aware.
Also I do think that it is important to realize that every version of the bible makes similar interpretive choice, but the "word for word" translations do it far less frequently. A couple of examples where almost every major English translations has made interpretive choices that, while valid, do not reflect the underlying original text. In Job 1:5,11 and 2:6,9 each instance of the word "curse" is a translation of the Hebrew word 'BRK' (bless). From the context this is interpreted as a "euphemistic curse"; however, that is an interpretive choice made by these translators, and one that is not completely agreed upon by all scholars. Unfortunately some versions (NIV and NASB in paticular) don't even bother to foot note this!!! Another similar interpretive choice made by most English translations is the translation of "I AM" simply God in Ho. 1:9. The text literally reads "because you are not my people, and I am not 'I AM' to you". This is clearly a reference to Lord God as the 'I AM' of Exodus 3:14. Translating this as simply 'God' is accurate, but really looses the connection this passage has with the Exodus account.
WOW!
If that wasn't a cut and paste you are quite the Biblical scholar!
How about the KJ use word effeminate in 1Cor 6:9? Had a good friend of mine
leave my church over that one (VERY serious).
Or 'Easter' in Acts 12:4?
So even "word for word" can get you in a fix.
There's problems everywhere no doubt.
If people would just read their Bibles.........
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/9/2008 10:02:52 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2408
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
WOW!
If that wasn't a cut and paste you are quite the Biblical scholar!
Well, that wasn't a cut and paste, so thanks
quote:
How about the KJ use word effeminate in 1Cor 6:9? Had a good friend of mine
leave my church over that one (VERY serious).
Or 'Easter' in Acts 12:4?
So even "word for word" can get you in a fix.
There's problems everywhere no doubt.
Yes, every translation does have its weaknesses; however, the examples above I think reflect more of the interpretive problem of a "thought for thought" translation than they do reflect the real problems of a "word for word" translation i.e. they reflect interpretative decisions made by the translator rather than simply a "word for word" translation of the text. The "Easter" of Acts 12:4 is a classic example of such an bad interpretative choice. "Word for Word" translations do make these same kinds of choices, but they do tend to make them far less frequently.
The true weakness of a "word for word" translation is that when idioms that have no meaning in English are translated "word for word" and the intended thought can be lost. Because of this problem, almost all "word for word" translations do use some form of dynamic equivalence and are not really true "word for word" translations. However, sometimes when a dynamic equivalent would have been better, they still do translate "word for word".
As an example, if I were to say in Hebrew:
"You want me to do this standing on one leg?"
A Hebrew speaker would hear:
"You want me to do this so quickly that the request is absolutely unreasonable!"
This understanding comes because of a story told in the Mishnah about a two men who requested that Rabbi Hillel explain the entire Torah while "standing on one leg"; because the Mishnah has not impacted the langauge and culture of most English readers in the same way it has that of Hebrew speaking Jews, most English readers do not understand the idiom and a "word for word" translation of this phrase would not convey the thought that was intended by the author.
quote:
If people would just read their Bibles.........
I absolutely agree!
Added to that thought, hopefully they will read from more than one version on occasion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/9/2008 11:57:14 AM
|
|
|
Doc65
Posts: 277
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
The true weakness of a "word for word" translation is that when idioms that have no meaning in English are translated "word for word" and the intended thought can be lost. Because of this problem, almost all "word for word" translations do use some form of dynamic equivalence and are not really true "word for word" translations. However, sometimes when a dynamic equivalent would have been better, they still do translate "word for word".
As an example, if I were to say in Hebrew:
"You want me to do this standing on one leg?"
A Hebrew speaker would hear:
"You want me to do this so quickly that the request is absolutely unreasonable!"
This understanding comes because of a story told in the Mishnah about a two men who requested that Rabbi Hillel explain the entire Torah while "standing on one leg"; because the Mishnah has not impacted the langauge and culture of most English readers in the same way it has that of Hebrew speaking Jews, most English readers do not understand the idiom and a "word for word" translation of this phrase would not convey the thought that was intended by the author.
Yes, it would be best if folks would read their Bibles but, as you noted, an understanding and ability to read the original languages is best, especially if one has a grasp of idioms...the Hebrew is a lot more interesting and even fun to read than an English translation and actually helps to reveal what is often read as a gloss in the OT (and a whole lot better than the Septuagint for meaning); the Greek of the NT gives deeper meaning to what we read in the NT, even though I really, really dislike slogging my way through Greek, but Koine is sooo much better than Attic...
_____________________________
"The Sovereign Lord is my strength; He makes my feet like the feet of a deer, He enables me to go on the heights." Hab. 3:19
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 6/9/2008 12:28:40 PM
|
|
|
HeadHome
Posts: 54
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
My short-cut reply:
I love parts of the KJV - but I can do without the "shouldst's" and "hadst's" and so on. Psalm 23 is a great example. I love to hear and say, "My cup runneth over." But I almost can't tolerate "Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies; Thou anointest my head with oil..." I don't know anyone outside of church and Shakespeare festivals who talks like that, and I value speaking clearly to people more than I value the tradition of the KJV. So...
I use the Nelson NKJV study Bible most frequently. I also have Nelson's Open Bible in the NKJV. I use the NASB Hebrew-Greek Key Word version at times for studying; and my ESV goes to church with me, since it uses the NIV, NLT, and the Message. I consider the ESV the 'lowest common denominator,' baseline acceptable translation.
I put the NIV a step below the ESV, and then there are the ones I don't like and never use - New Living, New Century, Amplified, and Message versions.
Peace - May God bless you, whatever translation you use.
_____________________________
Here comes the King,
All bow down;
All bow down.
- "All Bow Down," Chris Tomlin
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 8/28/2008 11:59:30 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3986
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
New Member christym78 asked:quote:
I was always under the impression that the 1611 had never been changed but i was told yesterday that in 1885 there was a revision done is true, does anyone know anything about it? and she was directed here.
Example of the changes in KJV from the 1611 version and what we all grew up with:
1611 version
Mar 1:1 The beginning of the Gospel of Iesus Christ, the Sonne of God,
Mar 1:2 As it is written in the Prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mar 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wildernesse, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Mar 1:4 Iohn did baptize in the wildernesse, and preach the baptisme of repentance, for the remission of sinnes.
Mar 1:5 And there went out vnto him all the land of Iudea, and they of Ierusalem, and were all baptized of him in the riuer of Iordane, cofessing their sinnes.
Mar 1:6 And Iohn was clothed with camels haire, and with a girdle of a skin about his loines: and he did eat locusts and wilde honie,
Mar 1:7 And preached, saying, There commeth one mightier then I after me, the latchet of whose shooes I am not worthy to stoupe downe, and vnloose.
Mar 1:8 I indeed haue baptized you with water: but hee shall baptize you with the holy Ghost.
Mar 1:9 And it came to passe in those daies, that Iesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of Iohn in Iordane.
Mar 1:10 And straightway comming vp out of the water, hee saw the heauens opened, and the Spirit like a doue descending vpon him.
Mar 1:11 And there came a voice from heauen, saying, Thou art my beloued Sonne, in whom I am well pleased.
Mar 1:12 And immediately the Spirit driueth him into the wildernesse.
Mar 1:13 And he was there in the wildernesse fourtie daies tempted of Satan, and was with the wildbeasts, and the Angels ministred vnto him.
Mar 1:14 Now after that Iohn was put in prison, Iesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospell of the kingdome of God,
Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdome of God is at hand: repent ye, and beleeue the Gospell.
"current" version
Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospe of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mar 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mar 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Mar 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mar 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
Mar 1:6 And John1 was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and2532 he did eat locusts and wild honey;
Mar 1:7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mar 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
Mar 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
Mar 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Mar 1:12 And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
Mar 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
Mar 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 8/29/2008 7:18:55 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2050
Status: offline
|
quote:
I've seen and read on quite a few websites that the NIV translation deleted over 42 verses from the Bible. 1. I doubt this is true.
2. Who's to say the other Bible didn't add them in, hmmm?
3. The NIV is based on newer and better manuscripts.
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 9/3/2008 10:58:27 AM
|
|
|
Tagurit
Posts: 21
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
|
I grew up with the KJV and memorized many passages from that one but now I use the NASB and ESV primarily. I have read through the entire bible in the NIV, Living Bible (when I was a child--you know the green covered one), KJV, NASB, and now working through the ESV now.
A few people recently have said that reading the bible is far more important than arguing over which translation to use. The KJV is a decent translation but I think McFatty put it best...
quote:
ORIGINAL: McFatty
snip.
...The problem (among others) I have with the King James only philosophy is that I have a hard time believing that God would find the people living in the early 1600s more in need or more worthy or whatever of a translation in their modern common-man language than any other time in history.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/6/2008 6:07:07 PM
|
|
|
ndusty3
Posts: 1
Joined: 9/6/2008
Status: offline
|
I am sure most kjv-only advocates do not see themselves this way, but as an outsider hired into a kjv-only ministry I received a different perspective. While it was a non-issue to me, it was an issue to them that had a wide ranging array of effects. I perceived them as critical, unforgiving, intolerant, and hateful toward those who did not agree with them on everything. Sometimes just being an outsider was enough. Questions were viewed as challenges to the authority of those in leadership positons. Doing anything new or different from the way everyone else considered "acceptable" made one an "erring brother" from whom they separated and often drove to compliance or drove out of the ministy. Problems were dealt with behind the back of the offender rather than in loving obedience to the principles taught in Matthew 18. Rather than restoration of the "erring brother" the goal was either compliance(submission to their authority) or separation from "their" group. Regardless of any of the sincere merits of their case, actions speak louder than words. They discredit their own position and use the Scripture to justify their misconduct as spiritual when in reality it is mean-spirited and vindictive. They talk about their love for the lost, but then have no problem with offensive behavior that drives even other Christians away, to say nothing of the unchurched. I now regard that particular kjv-only ministry as a frightenly cultish one. I still respect their right to their views, but to treat other Christians and the unsaved in such a manner cannot be condoned.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 10/9/2008 1:36:54 PM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 351
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
Really does look like Mark 16:9-20 is expunged.
hmm...
Thanks, Ezra, for your insights. 2 months ago, I would have said the "KJV-only" controversy is silly; why waste time on it. Now I understand how relevant it is. And as I see it, it's not a matter of KJV-only, but Textus Receptus/ben Chayyim -only.
_____________________________
All that is gold does not glitter.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 10/9/2008 2:06:53 PM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 351
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
I just bought a KJV. I was afraid the English would be archaic, but it's actually quite readable. Someone in the Dean Burgon Society did a readability analysis by computer, and it showed that the KJV is quite readable at even a Middle School level.
I am just starting to investigate this issue, but it seems to me to grow in importance, every day. It's almost like I've been living in The Shire all my life and not realizing the war that's building up in the rest of Middle Earth. I have some serious questions to the "me" of up to 2 months ago:
1. Why would God go to the trouble of inspiring His Word, and not preserve it? (Sorry, this question was borrowed from Bart Ehrman. He has a point.)
2. Dr. Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, in a recent debate with Bart Ehrman on NT Textual Criticism, basically said that what we have in the Critical Text (Nestle Aland 27 UBS 4 or whatever) is good enough. Bart Ehrman said there's no way we're going to get back to the originals. What is "good enough" preservation?
3. Can this "good enough" concept be applied to the Textus Receptus?
4. Why would I, a historic Protestant, believe in the on-going work of a Roman Catholic Cardinal with New Age leanings, who was one of the candidates for pope in 2005? I'm talking about Carlo Martini of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, one of the editors of Nestle-Aland-27th-edition-United-Bible-Society-4th-edition Critical Text.
5. Why would I, a Christian, believe in the works of occultists Westcott and Hort?
6. "Heaven and Earth may pass away, but My Words will never pass away." (Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). What with the sloughing off of Mark 16:9-20 (see here), 1 John 5:7, and John 8:1-11, and many more (see here for Westcott & Hort's voluminous flow of red ink), seems like many words are passing away, if you think the Critical Text is the best.
7. If the above verses aren't enough, what about, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt 5:18), and
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Sounds like preservation to me.
8. Psalm 12:6-7 says "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Why is this speaking of God preserving His people and not speaking of God preserving His Words, when the immediate context says it's speaking of His Words?
9. Your rusty car may still get you to the store and back, but for how long?
10. Is older necessarily better? Especially if "older" disagrees with 99% of the rest.
_____________________________
All that is gold does not glitter.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 10/9/2008 2:16:01 PM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 351
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
DaveW, thanks for the post of the differences between the 1611 KJV and the 1835 KJV.
Semes to mee there are no differences to the eare, and onlie vpdates in spelinge. I vnderstand from D. A. Waite that that's prettie muche the case alle the way through the Bible.
_____________________________
All that is gold does not glitter.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 10/9/2008 2:58:25 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1960
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
1. Why would God go to the trouble of inspiring His Word, and not preserve it? (Sorry, this question was borrowed from Bart Ehrman. He has a point.)
This presumes that the KJV prepresents that preservation.
quote:
2. Dr. Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, in a recent debate with Bart Ehrman on NT Textual Criticism, basically said that what we have in the Critical Text (Nestle Aland 27 UBS 4 or whatever) is good enough. Bart Ehrman said there's no way we're going to get back to the originals. What is "good enough" preservation?
3. Can this "good enough" concept be applied to the Textus Receptus?
The Textus Receptus is not the pure original Greek either, in spite of what the KJV advocates say.
quote:
4. Why would I, a historic Protestant, believe in the on-going work of a Roman Catholic Cardinal with New Age leanings, who was one of the candidates for pope in 2005? I'm talking about Carlo Martini of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, one of the editors of Nestle-Aland-27th-edition-United-Bible-Society-4th-edition Critical Text.
Part of the Textus Receptus was back translated from Latin, not taken from any original manuscript. That doesn't bother you?quote:
5. Why would I, a Christian, believe in the works of occultists Westcott and Hort?
Wescott and Hort have been dead for quite a while. Did Ghosts work on the recent editions of the UBS?
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 10/9/2008 6:07:28 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2408
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: johnkw
I just bought a KJV. I was afraid the English would be archaic, but it's actually quite readable. Someone in the Dean Burgon Society did a readability analysis by computer, and it showed that the KJV is quite readable at even a Middle School level.
I am just starting to investigate this issue, but it seems to me to grow in importance, every day. It's almost like I've been living in The Shire all my life and not realizing the war that's building up in the rest of Middle Earth. I have some serious questions to the "me" of up to 2 months ago:
1. Why would God go to the trouble of inspiring His Word, and not preserve it? (Sorry, this question was borrowed from Bart Ehrman. He has a point.)
2. Dr. Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, in a recent debate with Bart Ehrman on NT Textual Criticism, basically said that what we have in the Critical Text (Nestle Aland 27 UBS 4 or whatever) is good enough. Bart Ehrman said there's no way we're going to get back to the originals. What is "good enough" preservation?
3. Can this "good enough" concept be applied to the Textus Receptus?
4. Why would I, a historic Protestant, believe in the on-going work of a Roman Catholic Cardinal with New Age leanings, who was one of the candidates for pope in 2005? I'm talking about Carlo Martini of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, one of the editors of Nestle-Aland-27th-edition-United-Bible-Society-4th-edition Critical Text.
5. Why would I, a Christian, believe in the works of occultists Westcott and Hort?
6. "Heaven and Earth may pass away, but My Words will never pass away." (Matt. 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). What with the sloughing off of Mark 16:9-20 (see here), 1 John 5:7, and John 8:1-11, and many more (see here for Westcott & Hort's voluminous flow of red ink), seems like many words are passing away, if you think the Critical Text is the best.
7. If the above verses aren't enough, what about, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass , one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt 5:18), and
"And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Sounds like preservation to me.
8. Psalm 12:6-7 says "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Why is this speaking of God preserving His people and not speaking of God preserving His Words, when the immediate context says it's speaking of His Words?
9. Your rusty car may still get you to the store and back, but for how long?
10. Is older necessarily better? Especially if "older" disagrees with 99% of the rest.
Do you realize that there are significant difference between the KJV/TR and all know Greek manuscripts that date prior to Erasmus' TR?
Did you know that there are significant differences between the KJV and translations like the Latin Vulgate that predate the KJV translation?
Do you realize there are significant differences between the KJV and every non English translation?
Did you know that there are passages in the KJV OT that are not supported by any known Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts?
If the argument for the KJV being the only perfect translation is that "God would have perfectly preserved his word" then the questions must be asked:
Why did he NOT preserve his word so perfectly for the first 1500 years of the church?
Why did he preserve his word in only KJV English, and not in any other language, is God partial to only the 16th Century English speakers?
BTW - the 99% difference that you quoted is absurdly wrong, one of the things the manuscript record demonstrates is the accuracy of the texts we have. Those "old" manuscripts are far more similar to the later copies than they are different.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 10/9/2008 7:00:57 PM
|
|
|
manwe
Posts: 215
Status: offline
|
Benelchi. Right, they act like there was no Bible until 1611....
____________________
http://sunestauromai.wordpress.com
_____________________________
Zephaniah 3:17 reads, "The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 10/9/2008 7:03:58 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
1-3:
God's word being preserved does not mean that we will have a perfect, undiluted understanding of Scripture as we would from the original autographs. It is simply not possible. Even reading the Bible in English, with no knowledge of how the original languages works, does not give a, in my opinion, full understanding. It does, however, give an entirely sufficient understanding.
4-5:
If you want to go dirt-digging, I'm sure that fault can be found with every translation. I tend to trust in God to work in spite of our flaws.
6-7:
How do we know those words were stripped away by later versions, and not added to the Textus Receptus? Most serious Greek scholars I have spoken with do not think that the Mark 16 ending was written by the original author. Same with the other verses. They were likely added later by scribes to "help along" their readers.
9:
'Til it breaks down, I imagine. But my Honda isn't too rusty. Just got the oil changed and everything.
10:
Which would you trust more, a few copies of George Washington's writings from 1800, or many copies of George Washington's writings from 1900?
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 10/9/2008 8:02:03 PM
|
|
|
johnkw
Posts: 351
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
1. Why would God go to the trouble of inspiring His Word, and not preserve it? (Sorry, this question was borrowed from Bart Ehrman. He has a point.)
This presumes that the KJV prepresents that preservation.
It doesn't presume anything. It was a question.
And I don't believe the KJV represents that preservation, just a very good translation of that preservation.
quote:
quote:
2. Dr. Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, in a recent debate with Bart Ehrman on NT Textual Criticism, basically said that what we have in the Critical Text (Nestle Aland 27 UBS 4 or whatever) is good enough. Bart Ehrman said there's no way we're going to get back to the originals. What is "good enough" preservation?
3. Can this "good enough" concept be applied to the Textus Receptus?
The Textus Receptus is not the pure original Greek either, in spite of what the KJV advocates say.
This is in my mind the important issue. My point in question 3 was this: people are willing to use a "good enough" Critical Text that has many rules of logic applied to all the >5000 available Greek texts (not to mention the other > 15,000 ancient texts) such that it hopefully represents the original. Can we, in the spirit of Scrivener and Burgon, successfully refine the TR, i.e., approach the TR not as completely without flaw, but mostly correct and figure out how to make it better? This question is actually addressed to pro-TR people.
quote:
quote:
4. Why would I, a historic Protestant, believe in the on-going work of a Roman Catholic Cardinal with New Age leanings, who was one of the candidates for pope in 2005? I'm talking about Carlo Martini of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, one of the editors of Nestle-Aland-27th-edition-United-Bible-Society-4th-edition Critical Text.
Part of the Textus Receptus was back translated from Latin, not taken from any original manuscript. That doesn't bother you?
I've listened to people who dispute this. If it turns out to be true, it will bother me.
quote:
quote:
5. Why would I, a Christian, believe in the works of occultists Westcott and Hort?
Wescott and Hort have been dead for quite a while. Did Ghosts work on the recent editions of the UBS?
My point here is that their research and product gave huge momentum to the whole Critical Text enterprise, and the current incarnation owes an immense amount to them, both in the naturalistic approach to NT Textual Criticism, and the end product.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 10/9/2008 9:50:34 PM
|
|
|
| |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
