1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured The Key to the KJV-Only Conundrum

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by John of Japan, Jul 1, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 4 of 6
  1. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I believe God keeps His word updated as He causes/allows language changes to occur. And some languages change more-rapidly than others. The language of the Waironi in South America has changed very little since outsiders discovered this people, so missionaries to them don't hafta write a new Bible for them every ten years. But the Romance languages change constantly, and I suspect Japanese and Chinese does as well. (Perhaps you can enlighten us on that, John?)

    Now, can we imagine the difficulty we'd have in understanding Scripture if our only English Bible was Wycliffe's 1384 edition? I believe God caused "updated" translations to be made, and the KJV was one of them. But English has changed vastly since 1611, and I believe God has caused newer translations to be made to reflect those changes.

    As for the "must learn English" notion of some KJVOs, we have the example of the various peoples' hearing Peter's preaching in their own language or dialect by the power of the Holy Spirit. I believe this proves God intends for all to hear His word in their own languages. This KJVO excuse shows the shallowness and excuse-making KJVOs employ to try to justify their non-Scriptural KJVO myth.
     
    #61 robycop3, Jul 28, 2016
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Earth to Jordan. Earth to Jordan. You haven't responded to post #57 yet.
     
    #62 TCassidy, Jul 28, 2016
  3. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Some complain that the Bible original languages are dead languages.

    True - But they never change!

    Here is what I believe is a promise when the Lord sits upon the throne of David ruling over the kingdom of God upon the earth for 1000 years:

    Zephaniah 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

    OK bring on the nay-sayers! :rolleyes:

    HankD
     
    #63 HankD, Jul 28, 2016
  4. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    130
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So according to your logic, If I happen to a book that quotes a bible verse and get saved that it makes the whole thing scripture?

    You can get saved out of Roman Catholic commentary if it happens to mention John 3:16... But that does not make the whole things scripture.

    While I agree that many translations contain portions of scripture, to assert that a whole translation can be considered scripture just because you get saved from it not true.

    You can get saved from a sermon, but that doesn't mean the whole sermon is scripture.
     
    #64 Jordan Kurecki, Jul 28, 2016
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why do you feel you have to make up untruths? You know very well I never said any such thing. Shame on you! :(

    And I never said it did. Shame on you! :(

    So what part of the New King James Version do you think is not scripture? What part of the American Standard Version is not scripture? And why isn't it scripture?

    I never claimed it was. Shame on you! :(

    If we are going to discuss this very important issues, honesty will be required.

    So, let's go back to what was actually said. Do you think 2 Timothy 3:15 (And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.) is wrong? Is that which is able to make you wise unto salvation scripture or not?
     
    #65 TCassidy, Jul 28, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    130
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If a sermon makes you wise unto salvation does that make the sermon scripture?
     
    #66 Jordan Kurecki, Jul 28, 2016
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Jordan, please. That has already been answered. It is dishonest to ignore the answer and ask the same question again. :(
     
    #67 TCassidy, Jul 28, 2016
  8. Jordan Kurecki

    Jordan Kurecki Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes Received:
    130
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Please graciously remind me your answer to the question.

    It seems to me that you are the one being dishonest.

    It is a simple yes or no question.
    You seem to claim that anything that makes you wise unto salvation is scripture.

    Please Kindly answer yes or no, is a sermon someone gets saved after hearing considered scripture.

    If your answer is yes, then that just seems absurd.

    If your answer is no, then you need to explain your view of scripture, because your question that you asked seemed to imply to me that you think anything that makes you wise to salvation is scripture.
    If that is not the case than maybe you could explain your point.

    Perhaps you are not being clear rather than me being dishonest.
     
    #68 Jordan Kurecki, Jul 28, 2016
  9. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,864
    Likes Received:
    1,098
    Faith:
    Baptist
    [​IMG]
     
    #69 rsr, Jul 28, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Look at post #65.

    Please post a quote of me being dishonest.

    No, Jordan, the subject is clearly "The Holy Scriptures." Also called "The Holy Bible." Or "The Bible."

    I never mentioned "sermons," or "a book that quotes a bible verse" or a "commentary." You did.

    And, in fact, in your post #64 you show that you understand we are talking about bible translations and you even use the world "translation" to indicate what we are talking about.

    I am being very clear. It is you who is dancing around trying to avoid the issue.

    Here, again, are the questions you can't seem to answer honestly.

    So what part of the New King James Version do you think is not scripture? And why isn't it scripture?

    What part of the American Standard Version is not scripture? And why isn't it scripture?

    Do you think 2 Timothy 3:15 (And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.) is wrong? Is that bible which is able to make you wise unto salvation holy scripture or not?
     
    #70 TCassidy, Jul 28, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, but you can bet yer sweet bippy that sermon was BASED on Scripture.
     
    #71 robycop3, Aug 3, 2016
  12. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I believe that's why God chose ANCIENT Hebrew. Aramaic, and KOINE Greek as the languages in which He presents His word to man, and made them "dead", unchanging languages. And that's also why He causes new translations to be made in current languages, as they change over time. And let us remember it was GOD who made ALL languages to begin with, and it's GOD who causes/allows all the changes which occur in languages.

    The KJVO myth is one of Satan's attempts to interfere with God's updating the translation of His word to reflect the changes He's brought about in English since His word was first translated into English.
     
    #72 robycop3, Aug 3, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    9,838
    Likes Received:
    702
    Faith:
    Baptist
    When did language changes in Hebrew and Greek stop happening?
     
    #73 Jerome, Aug 3, 2016
  14. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,491
    Faith:
    Baptist
    About the same time you answered my questions in post 70?
     
    #74 TCassidy, Aug 3, 2016
  15. Smyth

    Smyth Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    48
    Yes, in Acts 2, the Jews of gentile heritage heard the Apostles' preaching in their own native languages. Since then, Christians have worked very hard to bring God's word to people of all languages. Compare to false religions: Muslims want people to learn Arabic to read the Korean. So-called Jews want people to learn Hebrew to read the Talmud -- but, only if you're rich, otherwise crawl away.
     
    #75 Smyth, Aug 3, 2016
  16. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,633
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Sorry I missed this, brother, then after that our Internet access was down.

    Japanese and Chinese have both changed radically from before WW2 to after. In the case of the Japanese language, the written language was in Classical Japanese (like Middle English) until after the war. The first complete Bible in colloquial Japanese was not until 1954 (NT) to 1955 (OT). Another thing that happened after the war was the government listing of 1850 acceptable Chinese characters for the Japanese language.

    Meanwhile, in China the Communists made many changes, especially in the area of semantics. Many new words were introduced in line with the Communist doctrines. Then the government simplified many of the characters, driving a wedge between the mainland and other Chinese areas: Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.
    I'm not sure this is a valid comparison. Note that there is a gap of 227 years between 1384 and 1611. Wycliffe was actually in Middle English and the KJV in Early Modern English, so they were two different varieties of the language. The gap between the KJV and our modern variety of English is not so great, being mostly in the semantics and not so much in the syntax.
    I agree. Besides your Scriptural point I would mention that the Great Commission is all about cross-cultural evangelism: "every nation," "all the world," etc. This presupposes clear teaching in target languages.

    Caveat: in my experience it is only a small percentage of KJVO people who think everyone should learn English. I know many who believe in Bible translation from the traditional texts. These are usually folk who care deeply about the Great Commission, but don't make a big deal out of their KJVO views.
     
    #76 John of Japan, Aug 3, 2016
  17. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,633
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Since Biblical Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic are all dead languages, we have to study the original language Scriptures from the language being used when they were written. So, for example, to learn the meaning of a certain word we look at how it is used in the Bible itself, then research its usage in contemporary documents. This is actually quite easy nowadays, taking just a few keystrokes.

    The Greek language continued to develop, but modern Greek is really quite similar to Biblical Greek, with most of the grammar and words being the same. If you were to take Greek from me, after Greek 101-102 and 201-202 you would be able to read the Greek NT fairly easily, and perhaps even become a translator of the TR into one of the 1000s of languages which do not have a NT in their language. This would set you far above the defenders of the KJV who never do a thing to get the Bible to the world. Follow Bearing Precious Seed, which prints millions of Bibles in many languages, rather than the Dean Burgon Society which repeats the old arguments ad infinitum. (This is just a "for instance," since I don't know if you follow them or not.)

    Hebrew became a dead language, but was resurrected by the Zionists. What is spoken now in Israel is essentially a modernized form of Biblical Hebrew, so that Israelis can easily read the Hebrew OT in their own modern language. Israelis would laugh at the suggestion that they needed an OT in English rather than the Hebrew it was written in.
     
    #77 John of Japan, Aug 3, 2016
  18. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    9,838
    Likes Received:
    702
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Didn't/won't Greeks and Israelis need a new translation every few years?
     
    #78 Jerome, Aug 3, 2016
  19. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Since we no longer have the originals, why not just accept the simple truth that God has indeed perserved to us in the greek/hebrew texts essentially those originals unto us, and that regardless which textual basis is used, the translations if done correctly are all to be seen as being the word of the lord unto us for today?
     
    #79 Yeshua1, Aug 3, 2016
  20. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,633
    Likes Received:
    1,832
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Israelis won't need an OT--Biblical Hebrew is their language. There is a Hebrew NT translation that might need to be updated in a few decades.

    Modern Greeks might want a new one, though an educated Greek reads the koine Greek NT fairly easily, I've heard.
     
    #80 John of Japan, Aug 3, 2016
Page 4 of 6
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...