Translator Question

"They" who? And, no I don't. I just do not see a conspiracy here. No one is giving Lucifer a name by calling him a morning star. The writer was just using a metaphor. Sometimes trying for an overly literal interpretation and taking such minute details out of context causes one to miss the overall message. We Baptists seem awfully prone to that disease.

Here's the good news--God loves us all. THAT'S the basic premise of the Bible. It even says so: John 3:16.

That's the bottom line. What else ya need to know?

--Ralph

 

Steve K., it has become apparent to me that it is nearly impossible to have a discussion with you. I've wasted too much time with you already, against my better judgment. I'm tired of having to repeat myself, so whenever you post, just reread my posts from before and pretend I'm still here and those are my new responses. It will be just as beneficial.

I encourage you to visit:
http://www.kjvonly.org
and
http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly

Merry Christmas, I'm out of here for a while. I need to retain some sanity during the holidays, and this forum is not helping.

 

A very nice and very useful website, Brian. I'm finding some good and informative reading on it.

--Ralph

 

Sure,Satan always counterfeits everything God does,just look at the Alexandrian bibles!!!!</font>[/QUOTE]I like how this works both ways -- The use of the same name is Isa 14 and Rev 14 is corruption; while the use of the same name in 1 Peter 5 and Rev 5 is Satan's counterfieting. The reason why you guys think you are successful in debates is because of the sleight of hand like this (that really isn't so sleight). You can't use a double standard to suit your whims. The problem in Isa 14 is the attempt of Satan to counterfeit himself as one above God, the very same argument you accept in 1 Peter 5. But you haven't really dealt with the similar issues of Son of Man. You don't claim the KJV is corrupt becuase it applies the name "Son of man" to Christ and Ezekiel? Why not?? Because you are inconsistent.

 

Author;They? the Niv. I guess I should have said I can see it and admit it.The bible does not stop at JN.3:16. Look at JN&gt;3:18, JN,3:36 Look at some of the things that God hates. Yes his love was shown for mankind in JN.3:16 but that is not a free for all.
Brian; Absolutely typical of a bible corrector!

 

Since several in this forum have mentioned the "Alexandrian" Bible, it sparked my curiousity. I've been reading about Clement and Origen and other early Christian scholars and philosphers who lived and worked in Alexandria. So far I see much to admire and nothing to lambast as do a few KJVonly writers. The allegorical method of interpretation is the logicial one. Much of the problems in religion today and over the centuries derive from an overly literal (and thus often wrong and meanspirited) interpretation of the Bible.

As I read more, I'll have more to say.

And lest some think I'm bashing the KJV, I am not. It has just as much validity as any other Bible (but not more). The problems, again, are not with any version of the Bible but in how they are interpreted by the reader.

--Ralph

 

I wish you were right about all the bibles being the same Author but they are not. They say the same thing in SOME places not in all. In SOME places they are COMPLETELY opposite.
Good DAY!

 

You mean like the KJV in 2 Thess 2:7 where it talks of the one who "letteth" when Paul meant the one who "restrains." Your "perfect" Bible gives the "completely opposite" (in your words) meaning of what God said and what God intended you to understand. The word "let" in modern times means to give permission; the word "restrain" means to hold back. 2 Thess 2:7 is not talking about one who gives permission or allows; it is talking about one who restrains. If you read your KJV without correction you will get false teaching.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to show yet another problem with the "perfect" word of God that fails to communicate clearly to the modern reader.

 

Overall, Steve, I am right... the Bible, any Bible, is about salvation and eternal life, about God's love for the universe (and I, for one, am not conceited enough to believe this wondrous love is just for Mankind but rather all sentientkind and all things, great and small, as has been already stated by writers greater than I).

The furor raised over minutiae by Bible literalists, KJVonlyites, and the like reminds me greatly of John Godfrey Saxe's wonderful poem on precisely this subject:

The Blind Men and the Elephant
by John Godfrey Saxe

American poet John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) based the following poem on a fable which was told in India many years ago.

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!׆

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

In the love of Christ,

--Ralph

 

Larry you prove nothing but your own ignorance !

 

Actually (heh, heh) one cannot prove their OWN ignorance; they simply do not know enough.

Just something to think about.

Does not necessarily apply to anyone on this board.

--Ralph

 

This was certianly a well reasoned response. Why not answer the question?? Why does the KJV say something that God did not say? Do you not have an answer? Have you officially been backed into a corner from which there is no escape except to admit that you were wrong about your idea? Why respond with something so inane as this?

If you want to talk ignorance, then show why I am ignorant. Let me tell you what I do know for a fact: 1) God used the word katecho, which means to hold back, detain, restrain, hinder, etc.; 2) the KJV uses the word let, which is modern English means to allow or permit. When God says one thing and the KJV says another, who will you believe?

The KJV was right ... 400 years ago when the word "let" meant to restrain. Now it has completely changed meanings and modern readers who are not aware of that have an entirely different meaning than what God said.

Now I recommend that if you want to continue to post here, get with the program and start answering some questions. Do not post personal attacks when you have no answers. Go find some answers and then post them.

 

Well, remember, you said there was no perfect bible anywhere on this earth;In other words you have never seen,read,or handled a bible!!!!

Oh brother!!!!

 

Well, remember, you said there was no perfect bible anywhere on this earth;In other words you have never seen,read,or handled a bible!!!!</font>[/QUOTE]Never mind that you are misrepresenting Pastor Larry (he didn't say that), isn't this what you believe was the case in 1605?

 

I beg to differ...........

[ December 26, 2002, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

To whom it may concern; Proverbs 26:4 KJV
"Answer not a fool according to his folly,lest thou be also like unto him."
Oh the riches of the word of God!
11 Cor. 2:17 KJV
"For we are not as many,who corrupt the word of God,in the sight of God speak we in Christ."

 

Hmmm... let's look at II Cor. 2:17. I'm not sure the KJV has the true gist of it. Looking at Young's Literal, we see:

"for we are not as the many, adulterating the word of God, but as of sincerity -- but as of God; in the presence of God, in Christ we do speak."

I would read that more as watering down rather than corrupting. Making weaker perhaps but still valid.

An earlier translation than the KJV is Wycliffe's of about 1380:

"For we ben not as many, that don auoutrie bi the word of God, but we speken of clennesse, as of God, bifor God in Crist."

Note "auoutrie" or adulterating instead of 'corrupt.'

And the World English:

"For we are not as so many, peddling the word of God. But as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, we speak in Christ."

Peddling or profiting from the Word of God or just weakening it--while not totally admirable--is a lot different than corrupting it.

Continuing, from Darby's 1890 translation:

"For we do not, as the many, make a trade of the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, before God, we speak in Christ."

Closer to the World English "peddling" and still far different from the KJV.

And the NIV? Also 'peddling':

"Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God."

The Bible in Basic English has it:

"For we are not like the great number who make use of the word of God for profit: but our words are true, as from God, being said as before God in Christ."

The Douay-Rheims also speaks of "adulterating."

Who agrees with the KJV? Webster's (which is really just the KJV warmed over) and, somewhat suprisingly, the ASV of 1901.

But the consensus seems to be against the KJV interpretation in this instance.

No, the KJV is not always wrong, nor is it always right. It's simply another record of God's Word, imperfect as are all the works of Men. If you have questions, go to Jesus in prayer, He is the ultimate translator.

in Christ,

--Ralph

 

Ditto my above.

 

On the otherhand, you might consider Proverbs 8:33:

"Hear instruction, and be wise, Don't refuse it."

Pastor Larry has been far more patient with you than many might be.

The KJV is not the end translation. Soon it will be as archaic and about as understandable as Wycliffe's of 1380:

"Therfor ech man that herith these my wordis, and doith hem, schal be maad lijk to a wise man, that hath bildid his hous on a stoon."
(Matthew 7:24)

Archaic quaintness is not always veracity or, at least, understandable in modern context. With each new generation of Bible scholars and translators, we get closer to the true meaning of God's Word.

--Ralph

 

Ditto my above.