What use is an English Bible Version for those who can't read English?

So the Lockman foundation said:

And clarified their meaning of Bible by saying:

Now, let me combine the two by replacing Bible with their definition of Bible:

Conclusion:
By their own definitions it is fair to say they believe the Bible is a mythological book that never existed between two covers. If they define the Bible as inerrant and infallible, but then say it was only that way as originally written, they have closed themselves up very tight in a logic-type compartment of reasoning. All original manuscripts were never in one book, ever. They have no Bible, and certainly are unfit to say anything they created is a Bible, based on their own definition of the word Bible.

 

No. It is not a fair statement at all. It is playing games with people's words so as to redefine them to mean something that was not intended. This is patently dishonest.

The originals that God directly inspired were never bound between two covers. Are they mythological? God's Word is eternal. It was not progressively created. It was progressively revealed. To say that all 66 books are required for any portion to be the Word of God is false.

They have also said no more nor no less than what the scripture says about itself- which is exactly what we all should do with regard to doctrine.

This is a false distortion. The fact that the originals were never in one volume does not invalidate orthodox doctrines on inspiration or inerrancy. These men have said no more than the Bible says. To say anything more than this would be adding to the scriptures.

 

I won't go in the discussion of KJVO or not, but there definitly is a Baptist Church in the Netherlands who believe that the "Staten Vertaling" is the preserved word of God for the dutch. You can read (if you can read dutch of course ) that in their statement of faith: Baptisten Gemeente Het Anker "Statement of Faith"

As concerning our church, we are having our services in english and we use the KJB only.

My own opinion of the dutch bible is the following:
For the dutch people, the "Staten Vertaling" is the most accurate and reliable translation of the word of God. However, I do not see it as infallible, contrary to the King James Bible, which I do see as the innerant and infalibble perfect copy of the word of God.

Sadly to say, in the dutch antilles, we do have some papiamento translated bibles, but I would not recommend none of them. I prefer to teach my kids the english so that they can read out of the word of God, The King James Bible.

 

I prefer to teach my kids the english so that they can read out of the word of God, The King James Bible.

Would it not be better to teach your kids in Hebrew so they can read from the Textus Receptus, thus eliminating any translational variances that are inhierent to tralsations?

 

No, it would not be better, because in my belief is also included that God choose the english language to preserve His Word. And further more I believe that the english says it perfectly, hebrew might be an extra insight, but not in that way, that without the hebrew man can not understand, we can know what God said, by simply reading the KJB, all you need to know is to pick up your bible, pray for understanding and start reading. No need for extra hebrew skills, because if that was the case, we would always rely on what some man with hebrew skills would tell us how to understand.

No way, God's word is available for everyone.

By the way, English is the language that is understood and being taught almost everywhere in the world, it is THE INTERNATIONAl LANGUAGE.

Nobody has a problem with reading english papers, reading english books, listnening to english songs, watch english tv progams and movies, international business talk is mostly english, enlish standard time is english, measures is english, computer language is english, yet...when it comes to reading the King James Bible, many will say...oww, english is not my language, it is too difficult etc. etc. I have seen it with my own family (some not saved, some professed to be saved but living a backslidden live)they won't attend to a english King James Bible preaching church, because their english is not good...but they will perfectly sing all the songs in the hitparade, and watch all the movies in english..to me that is like a hypocrite.

For many english is just an excuse...of course this won't go up for the amricans, they wil have other excuses...KJB is to old englih etc. etc.

If I could have learned it, and my wife could have...so can the rest.

 

By the way, English is the language that is understood and being taught almost everywhere in the world, it is THE INTERNATIONAl LANGUAGE.

King James English is not the international language. The most popularly used English form is American business English, which does not contin words like "thee", and "doest". Also, in American english, "to let" means "to allow" and "to suffer" means "to bear pain", where in the KJV, "to let" means "to hinder" and "to suffer" means "to allow".

But if you want to learn the language used by the most people in the world, I suggest you learn Chinese. It outnumbers all forms of English combined. The TR has been translated into Chinese.

 

I believe that the english says it perfectly, hebrew might be an extra insight

How can that be, since the OT was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic? It's more accurate to say that Hebrew says it perfectly, and English might be an extra insight.

 

Either you don't get my point or you just want to make some fun of me by playing wordgames.


First of all, I said English was the international language, I never said King James english, these are your interpretations.

About the THEES and the THOUS, these are the example that I was referring to, that Americans have other excuses, like the old English..thank you for confirming that.

The difference with the chinese language is the following, I can go to a chinese man and we both can communicate in English, same counts if I encounter a French man, a german man, a Spanish person, a African person…etc. etc.But with the Chinese language I can only communicate with the Chinese...

Can you understand me now? Or do I really need to break the money in 1 cents coins so you will understand?

 

That makes no sense. In other words, translating the Bible to Swahili in 2003 is perfectly appropriate, but translating it into English in 2003 is not? There's no biblical support for this belief whatsoever. </font>[/QUOTE]What Bible Society for translating the Bible in Swahill?

 

What use is it That God says He will preserve His word and then preserves it only in the hebrew, a language that most of the people do not speak, are you by the way learning the hebrew and also your kids (if you have any)

It is just a matter of what you believe, it is clear to me that you do not believe that God did not necesarly preserved hiwe word in the KJB only...

But when encountering the differences in the bible translation, on which or whom authority do you rely to know whis one is correct?

Mine is easy, God said He would preserve His word, and I believe that is perfect in the King James Bible...so I can trust just my King James Bible...no need to e-mail mister docturandus knows it all guy, to rely on his explanation

 

I ask you, What are these sides? If you are not aware of this question, how many sides do we have?

 

What do you do if an "accurate" Bible translation in French or German or Spanish disagrees with the
"accurate" KJV? How do you decide which one is "most accurate?" </font>[/QUOTE]To negate concerning many *accurate* foreign Bibles and the KJV is not necessary because God provided His preserved Words in all foreign Bible translations. </font>[/QUOTE]You are missing my point. What do you do if "God's preserved word in English" disagrees with "God's preserved word in Spanish?" For example, Mk. 1:2 in the KJV reads,

"As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." (Mk. 1:2, KJV)

Yet the same verse in the Spanish Riena-Valera, considered by some to be "God's preserved word in Spanish," reads,

"Como está escrito EN ISAIAS EL PROFETA: He aquí yo envío á mi mensajero delante de tu faz, Que apareje tu camino delante de ti." (Mk. 1:2, Reina-Valera)

So the "preserved word of God" in English reads, "in the prophets," while the "preserved word of God" in Spanish reads, "in Isaiah the prophet." Which of these two different "preserved words of God" is correct? And how do you know this? </font>[/QUOTE]You choose a corrupted Spanish Bible.

 

What do you do when the KJV disagrees with the Olivetan Bible? For example, in 1 Jn. 5:7 the KJV reads,

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1 Jn. 5:7, KJV)

But the French Olivetan Bible reads,

"Car il y en a trois qui rendent témoignage dans le ciel, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit, et ces trois-là sont indivisible EN JESUS." (1 Jn. 5:7, Olivetan Bible)

Note that the Olivetan version reads, "...and these three are one IN JESUS," where the KJV reads simply, "...and these three are one." Does the Olivetan Bible *add* the words "in Jesus" or does the KJV *omit* them? Given that we are neither to add nor to subtract from the word of God, which of these two different "preserved words of God" is the *real* word of God? And how do we know this? </font>[/QUOTE]What publisher on the Olivetan Bible?

 

I said English was the international language, I never said King James english, these are your interpretations.
The language the KJV was written in is not modern English.

About the THEES and the THOUS, these are the example that I was referring to, that Americans have other excuses, like the old English..thank you for confirming that.
That's no excuse. It's a very real difference. I couldn't help but notice you skated past my comment about "to let" and "to suffer". BTW, English is my second language. Dutch is my first. I by no means subscribe to versionology, because it's not biblically supported.

The difference with the chinese language is the following, I can go to a chinese man and we both can communicate in English, same counts if I encounter a French man, a german man, a Spanish person, a African person etc. etc.But with the Chinese language I can only communicate with the Chinese...
None of the people know King James English. They'll know American Business English, which is not the language found in the KJV.

Can you understand me now? Or do I really need to break the money in 1 cents coins so you will understand?
I understand you perfectly. You seem to think that King James English is in international use today.

 

Erasmus left us less testimony than Westcott that he was saved. By their persecution of other professing Christians, many of the KJV translators have left evidence that they were not genuine believers.
</font>[/QUOTE]Erasmus between Roman Catholic and the Reformation used the *pen* that's how he took care of the Bible translation. After he died, the reformation took care of him -- NOT RC!!!!

 

What use is it That God says He will preserve His word and then preserves it only in the hebrew
Or only in English? There are incredible limitations on God's word in English. For example, in the NT, there are at least four Greek words for "love". But in English, there's only one. So, in order to know which form is discussed, it's necessary to revert to the Greek words that were originally used.

are you by the way learning the hebrew and also your kids (if you have any)
I have three children, and they have access to a Strong's online reference, as wekk as Greek and Hebrew dictionaries in the home. They also have copies of the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, and RSV for study.

It is just a matter of what you believe
I believe in the Bible. It says nothing about preservation via a specific translation.

it is clear to me that you do not believe that God did not necesarly preserved hiwe word in the KJB only
Indeed. I feel that such a view is idolatrous, because it elevates a translation to a greater level than the tests it was translated from.

But when encountering the differences in the bible translation, on which or whom authority do you rely to know whis one is correct?
I do study to find out what the writers originally penned in Greek and Hebrew.

Mine is easy, God said He would preserve His word, and I believe that is perfect in the King James Bible
Except that such a belief is not biblically supported. It also doesn't explain the numerous errors that exist in the KJV.

so I can trust just my King James Bible
SO when the KJV contradicts the original Greek and Hebrew, do you believe the KJV, or the original greek and hebrew?

 

Johnny V, maybe we must continue this in dutch then, because you very clear do not understand me and you keep twisting my words...

I nowhere implied that the King James is written in modern English

Can you affirm that God promised to preserve His Words? If yes, where to be found?

Again, where do I imply that the English is KJV English, and besides that, if they can speak and understand modern English, it is not a hard thing to understand the KJV English, some words might be difficult in the beginning, but by a simple explanation it will be understood…I have learned it, so did my wife…so what is the problem with other people whose primary language is not English just like my wife and I?

No, you do not understand, I nowhere stated that King James English is in internation use…Modern English is in international use, and with a slight bit of learning the “so called” difficult old English words and their meaning will be easily mastered.

 

"From the NASV to the KJV" by Frank Logsdon. You need to read his little booklet. Frank was a committe member for the NASB. He will tell you his testimony.

 

I nowhere implied that the King James is written in modern English
Then the fact that American English is internationally prevalent has no bering on biblical preservation and Old English.

Can you affirm that God promised to preserve His Words? If yes, where to be found?
No I can't. There's a verse that KJVO's claim is a preservation verse, but that's quite disputable.

Again, where do I imply that the English is KJV English, and besides that, if they can speak and understand modern English, it is not a hard thing to understand the KJV English, some words might be difficult in the beginning, but by a simple explanation it will be understood
Why is this necessary, when a native translation is often readily available, which would require no stumbling over "difficult" meanings and words?

so what is the problem with other people whose primary language is not English just like my wife and I
That's your choice and I applaud that. However, there's no biblical requirement for others to do the same.

I nowhere stated that King James English is in internation use
Yet you imply that the KJV should be the only acceptible Bible?

Modern English is in international use, and with a slight bit of learning the “so called” difficult old English words and their meaning will be easily mastered.
Which is not necessary, since native language bibles are typically handy.

 

Sometimes it is just a matter of reading it in their context

Do they see the differences ?

It does speak of preservation…where is it ?

From my point of believing this issue, God has choosen the King James Bible to be the preserved text, who am I to questioning Him ? Just because with my human logic I cannot understand it is no reason to question Him.

First of all, there is no such thing as a original greek or hebrew manuscript, so you only have different copies, now some greek copies leaves some things out, while an overwhelming majority don’t..now which one is then the preserved greek/hebrew copy ? How would you know? Who will be your authority that you will follow to know which manuscript to believe in case of a difference?

Sometimes what seem to be an error is not always an error after carefully examination, and in cases where I do not have a explantion I just have the simple believe That God or either will explain me another time, or just do not see it important enough at the time to give me insight.