KJVO and other languages

Yes and no. God made us with emotions and they serve a purpose in religion... and yes most people have deeply held feelings about their "religion". However, feelings are NEVER a sound foundation for faith. Christianity is an intelligent faith- facts=> faith => feelings.

Do you have any scripture supporting this? We must be as open to instruction as a child and as willing to believe... but where does the Bible say we must have their emotions?

The immature emotions of a child do not lead to spiritual maturity or godliness. They lead to selfishness, irrational fear, etc.

Love is not a feeling. It is a choice with feelings attached. Read the great chapter on love, I Cor 13. It describes biblical love... it is not an emotion and in fact to love you sometimes must overcome your emotions.

By serving and obeying Him... then you are rewarded with feelings.

...not as a basis for faith. In fact, they might even lead you into deception.

Before you start chastising someone else, perhaps you should find out what the Bible says about faith, love, emotions, etc.

[ November 25, 2002, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

I believe that God's word in it's original text was God breathed in that the writers were taking dictation as to what to write.
The arguement that whether inspiration is symonymous to dictation is an ages old one.

I feel that King James was inspired by God to order the KJV.
You realize, of course, that there is no biblical requirement for all share that view.

How many words in the KJV do you not understand? ... Can you explain just what it is that is wrong with the grammar or composition in the KJV.

Some phrases are not understood by most readers. Not one in ten can tell you what this means "We do you to wit" (2 Cor. 8:1), yet it simply means "We make known to you." Wit, wist, wot, and even wotteth appear many times in the KJV, yet its meaning (know, knew) escapes most people. In fact, to say to someone today "We do you" has a sexually inappropriate meaning, that did not exist in 1611.

Many words have changed their meaning since 1611, or even 1769. "Let" meant to hinder then; now it means to allow. "Suburbs" in the KJV means "open lands". "Corn" then meant grain, not the crop grown today. "Botch" and "Blains" referred to inflammations. "Advertise" in Num 24:14 meant to "advise". "Prevent" meant only to go before; now it can also mean to keep a thing from happening.

The names of animals and birds in the KJV are often incorrectly identified due to the lack of knowledge of these 400 years ago, and require us to go back to the original hebrew or greek to discover their contemporary meaning. Conies are hares, gledes are falcons; pygargs are mountain-goats, chamois are mountain sheep; roe, roebucks are gazelles, etc. And satyrs, dragons, and unicorns are mythological; they have no place in the Scriptures.

Some places where the KJV is incorrect need to be corrected, and have been corrected in other traslations: "Easter" in Acts 12 should be "Passover"; "Jesus" in Heb. 4 should be "Joshua". "Firmament" in Gen. 1 should be "expanse" (for firmament would regard the heavens as being a solid vault above the earth). "Brass" is incorrect, since only "Bronze" and copper were available in Old Testament days (brass is an alloy of copper and zinc). "Wind" in John 3:8 should be translated "Spirit" (pnuema is so translated everywhere else in the NT, though there are several places in the OT where "Spirit of God" should be "a mighty wind", since the OT meanings differ from the NT meanings). "Made" in John 1:3 is better translated "came into being"; and "comprehended it not" in John 1:5 actually means "did not overtake it".

Monetary terms are often incorrect: denarius, assarian, lepta, daric, etc. The reader may not know the values of these, but should at least know the correct term.

Then there's the use of "which" and "who":
As an interrogative pronoun--as in the question "Who called?--the word "who" has been part of the English language for a long time, although speakers of Old English, which was current from about A.D. 400 to 1100, pronounced it a little differently; for example, it appears as "hwa" in some books from this time period. There's also something relatively new about the word "who," however. As recently as the 17th century, English speakers did not use "who" as a relative pronoun, instead using "that" or even "which," which now is used exclusively for non-human things. For example, the first line of the Lord's Prayer in the King James Bible, published in 1611, reads: "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name" (Matt. 6:9). Today, this implies that "Our Father" is an inanimate object, and when reciting it alound, we often say "who art in Heaven". This, too, would have been gramatically incorrect: It's either "which art" or "who is".

[ November 25, 2002, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

This seems very similar to the medieval Catholic belief that Jerome's Vulgate was the final translation of the Bible that would ever be needed, a notion Jerome would have laughed at.

I believe that King James would be laughing at the same notion when applied to the KJV today.

[ November 25, 2002, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Hi Scott;
I don't know what it was that I said that got you so upset so as to write to me in such away, but since you did Here's what I have to say. Love is something we all have control of. It's not something you just fall in to, is it?.It's something we may all direct just as any emotion I can also hate anyone one I want to. No where did I say anything about uncontrolled emotions although I did say the emotions of a child.When I was saved I was baling my head off.and yes my reactions were uncontrolled but my Love for Jesus was not. How ever I would say that your writing me and picking everything I said apart and doing your all out best to make your self look intelligent no doubt, was your uncontrolled emotions... As to backing up what I was saying about the child part check out
Luk 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

So much for maturity and intlligents

Romanbear

Peace

 

You are mistaken. I am not angry or upset. This is a debate board so refutation of errors is a big part of what we do. You posted errors of fact. I pointed them out. What you do with the info is up to you and I won't be upset if you reject it outright.

Right. According to the Bible, it is a choice characterized by actions and followed by emotions.

No, it isn't... the emotional infatuation that the world general calls "falling in love" is primarily emotional self-gratification. We like the feelings we experience when someone approves of us.

No. Because it is not an emotion. It is a cognizant choice.

...nor did I.

I cried when I was under conviction because I knew that the preacher was talking about me when he preached about sin, death, and hell... and Christ love and death.

When you write things on a public forum that are in error or that others might disagree with, why are you surprised and offended when someone analyzes and argues with your points?

No. If you knew me, you would learn that I am very controlled and seldom get upset even when folks try to offend me.

Not a single reference to emotion in all of this. Children are teachable, open, and unencumbered by worldly things. That is how we must be in order to receive the gospel. The joy we feel is a result of the faith we have in the gospel... not the cause of it.

How so? Emotional and intellectual maturity are good signs of spiritual maturity. I can prove this biblically if you are interested.

[ November 25, 2002, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

Hi JohnV
In your post you mention some good points, but take a look at one of the best like newer versions the NIV in comparison to the words in the KJV
Num.34:15 "Wadi" in the NIV.- "River" in the KJV.
1 Sam.15:2 "Waylaid" in the NIV. -"Lay in wait" in the KJV.
Hosea 14:4 "Waywardness in the NIV -"Back sliding" in the KJV.
Ezek 27:26 "offal" in the NIV- "Dung in the KJV.
By the way if you look up "offal" in a standard college dictionary you'll find that it doesn't mean the same thing as "dung". I could go on for about an hours worth of reading, but I think you can see that at least this modern version is not so modern. I have further data on the NKJV and the NASB. By the way which version do you rely on?. I am not KJV only but I rely on it's accuracy.I have also had times where I didn't understand something but sooner or later I figured it out.I've known a lot of people smater than I but I've never known any one to know the Bible and understand it all at once.
Romanbear
peace

 

My bibles of coice are NKJV and RSV. I don't have an NIV, but my daughter does.

 

Joshua > At what point does English change sufficiently that it is no longer the English of the KJV and therefore a new translation is needed? If we reach the point where the KJV reads like Beowulf (unannotated), is a new translation warranted?

i think there will be various thresholds, depending on the speech/church community. denominations of the "hi church" sort, who like traditional cadences anyway, will probably tolerate a more beowulfesque translation. those with a greater egalitarian/missionary bent will probably opt sooner for a more koine/popular-sounding translation.

it seems the case for the KJB, n anecdotal evidence seems to confirm this in the case of the Chinese Union Version of the Bible, which has resisted the arrival of newer translations.

Joshua > Is there an authoritative, single translation for the other languages? Is there a website or document that lists them? What are the criteria for determining which translation is the preserved Word of God in another language?

the Chinese Union Version is one example. it's ironic that KJBO churches wld champion its use among their Chinese-speaking congregations, ignoring (or perhaps ignorant of) the Westcott-Hort textual basis of the the CUV.

[ November 26, 2002, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Forever settled in heaven ]