-
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!
A KJV question
- Thread starter donnA
- Start date
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
You still have that problem. You have simply gone from one extreme to the other.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who are you to say that I still have the same problem I had as a KJVO (you didn't know me then)? I may not be perfect, but I can assure you that I am far more objective than I used to be. There are KJVOs on this board who are extremely loose with the facts and you don't criticize them in this way (I am guilty of the same). I suspect it is because you disagree with me on points of Biblical preservation that you make this comment.
I've got news for you, we might be more alike than either of us would care to admit...
Sincerely,
You still have that problem. You have simply gone from one extreme to the other.
Who are you to say that I still have the same problem I had as a KJVO (you didn't know me then)? I may not be perfect, but I can assure you that I am far more objective than I used to be. There are KJVOs on this board who are extremely loose with the facts and you don't criticize them in this way (I am guilty of the same). I suspect it is because you disagree with me on points of Biblical preservation that you make this comment.
I've got news for you, we might be more alike than either of us would care to admit...
Sincerely,
I will visit that thread tomorrow morning.
Actually, Joseph Smith did claim to translate golden plates, which is what they call the Book of Mormon. It's a long story. Would anybody be interested in starting a discussion on what Mormonism is and how to deal with it? I may start one tomorrow morning-if you see it come visit!
As far as this subject goes........I plead the fifth until further notice.
Actually, Joseph Smith did claim to translate golden plates, which is what they call the Book of Mormon. It's a long story. Would anybody be interested in starting a discussion on what Mormonism is and how to deal with it? I may start one tomorrow morning-if you see it come visit!
As far as this subject goes........I plead the fifth until further notice.
Are you a Greek scholar? If you are, you should know better than to say this, as it can be translated this way too. That is not the definition of a Mistranslation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That phrase the KJV misstranslates "God forbid" is closer in all of these translations <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Chris Temple
New Member
One does not need to be a Greek Scholar to check this phrase (hey , I thought KJVOs didn't like scholars?)
Using the NASB Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionary one can find the phrase translated "God forbid" in the KJV to be "May it never be" in the NASB. The phrase is a combination of the Gk meµ; a prim. particle; not, that … not, lest (used for qualified negation), and ginomai; from a prim. root gen- gen-; to come into being, to happen, to become. Of all the possible translations, God forbid is not one of them - other than as a dynamic equivalent. The best translation would be "Let that not happen" or "may it not come into being" or "may it never be", just as the NASB has it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trinity26:
Are you a Greek scholar? If you are, you should know better than to say this, as it can be translated this way too. That is not the definition of a Mistranslation.
Using the NASB Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionary one can find the phrase translated "God forbid" in the KJV to be "May it never be" in the NASB. The phrase is a combination of the Gk meµ; a prim. particle; not, that … not, lest (used for qualified negation), and ginomai; from a prim. root gen- gen-; to come into being, to happen, to become. Of all the possible translations, God forbid is not one of them - other than as a dynamic equivalent. The best translation would be "Let that not happen" or "may it not come into being" or "may it never be", just as the NASB has it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trinity26:
Are you a Greek scholar? If you are, you should know better than to say this, as it can be translated this way too. That is not the definition of a Mistranslation.
Interesting...Are you a Greek Scholar?
The word "me genoito" literally means may(God) make it not be. This proves that that the translation in the KJB is not incorrect. As any one can see, God forbid means exactly that. The KJB does not need to
be corrected.
Heres a good reason for not using a NASB.
II Peter 3:16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
In second Peter it says that some things are hard to be understood. Modern versions which constantly attempt to lower the vocabulary level of the Scriptures are conviently ignoring the fact. A person cannot oversimmplify the Bible's language without beginning to lose the truth.
[ April 30, 2001: Message edited by: Trinity26 ]
The word "me genoito" literally means may(God) make it not be. This proves that that the translation in the KJB is not incorrect. As any one can see, God forbid means exactly that. The KJB does not need to
be corrected.
Heres a good reason for not using a NASB.
II Peter 3:16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
In second Peter it says that some things are hard to be understood. Modern versions which constantly attempt to lower the vocabulary level of the Scriptures are conviently ignoring the fact. A person cannot oversimmplify the Bible's language without beginning to lose the truth.
[ April 30, 2001: Message edited by: Trinity26 ]
Chris Temple
New Member
No...once again you are wrong. Get a source, its not hard. A Young's, A Strong's..they're on the internet as well, just check it out.
As for your ludicrous citation of II Peter 3:16 you had better throw out your KJV and stick to the Hebrew and Greek. Just rely on the Lord to illuminate it for you
As for your ludicrous citation of II Peter 3:16 you had better throw out your KJV and stick to the Hebrew and Greek. Just rely on the Lord to illuminate it for you
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trinity26:
The word "me genoito" literally means may(God) make it not be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Notice you had to put "God" in parenthesis to get His name into the verse. You have proven the argument against you. "God" isn't in the original Greek. By the strictest definition, the KJV is "adding to" the original Word of God.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As any one can see, God forbid means exactly that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"As any one can see," you are affording the courtesy of exception to the KJV when you would not afford the same courtesy to MVs under similar circumstances. DOUBLE STANDARD.
To me, "God forbid" means that God is actively preventing something. In the Greek, His is not.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In second Peter it says that some things are hard to be understood. Modern versions which constantly attempt to lower the vocabulary level of the Scriptures are conviently ignoring the fact. A person cannot oversimmplify the Bible's language without beginning to lose the truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Some things are difficult to understand because of their nature (i.e., spiritual things), not because of vocabulary.
This is a point when KJVOism seeks to make things that are difficult to understand in the Bible even more so.
Someone else has well said elsewhere on this board that a non-Christian Shakespearean scholar can easily understand the language of the KJV (better than you or I), but they will not understand the spiritual content of it.
Sincerely,
The word "me genoito" literally means may(God) make it not be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Notice you had to put "God" in parenthesis to get His name into the verse. You have proven the argument against you. "God" isn't in the original Greek. By the strictest definition, the KJV is "adding to" the original Word of God.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As any one can see, God forbid means exactly that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"As any one can see," you are affording the courtesy of exception to the KJV when you would not afford the same courtesy to MVs under similar circumstances. DOUBLE STANDARD.
To me, "God forbid" means that God is actively preventing something. In the Greek, His is not.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In second Peter it says that some things are hard to be understood. Modern versions which constantly attempt to lower the vocabulary level of the Scriptures are conviently ignoring the fact. A person cannot oversimmplify the Bible's language without beginning to lose the truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Some things are difficult to understand because of their nature (i.e., spiritual things), not because of vocabulary.
This is a point when KJVOism seeks to make things that are difficult to understand in the Bible even more so.
Someone else has well said elsewhere on this board that a non-Christian Shakespearean scholar can easily understand the language of the KJV (better than you or I), but they will not understand the spiritual content of it.
Sincerely,
Alex H. Mullins
New Member
Katie:
I can understand the problem of translating God's word into other languages and have often thought about that myself.
First, I believe God can and has inspired believers, those who are born again, born of the spirit to translate his word into foreign languages. Those who are not born of the spirit will not be able to translate His word in the same manner as those who are directed by the Holy Spirit.
Second, if any translator is beginning with a corrupt version, that is, any version other than the KJV which we have today, he/she , in turn will produce a corrupt translation no matter what language. It will contain some of Gods word, perhaps even enough to be effective, but it will not BE God's perfect word.
There will be some, several on this board, many of whom sound like very wise bible school graduates, who will tell you there is no perfect, preserved word today. That the perfect word was contained only in the original Greek/Hebrew manuscripts and they do not exist today. Please do not believe that!
God has preserved His word perfect for us today in the KJV, every word exactly where He wants it to be, saying exactly what He wants it to say. Furthermore, looking back at the chain of translations from the Textus Receptus to our KJV today was perfectly reliable. God can do that!! God did do that!!
If the translators begin with that perfect word, and are guided by the Holy Spirit, they will have no difficulty translating that Word into any language used on planet earth, perfect and without error.
It does not take a Greek/Hebrew scholar, even a bible school graduate to know that we serve a God who is able. He did preserve His word without error for all to read, believe and apply. Be thankful we do not have the original today. Somebody would be making a lot of money on that!! As it is, book publishers are making a lot of money on every new "Bible" that comes off the presses each day. Only the KJV (Auth 1611) does not have a copyright.
We must also never forget that Satan, the greatest manipulator, conn artist, deceiver of all time, is directly responsible for all this confusion. What better way to confuse believers in the way that he has? He is the one who has said "God's word is no longer clear, I will give you a new "God's Word" that will be easy to read and, furthermore, I will give you a new one every year or two that says different things so you can have one that says whatever you want it to say".
Satan, through unholy men has done that, while God, the final champion, the victorious one, has provided for us the perfect translation in our language.
The KJV has been sufficient for me, a salesman of average intelligence, an average guy on the street, saved by grace. I love the old language of the KJV and have no problem in determining what God is saying to me from that reliable Word.
It is, however, going to be nigh unto impossible to get our young people back into the word, memorizing verses, etc as they once did prior to all this confusion.
This is one more sign of the end-times.
If you ask for Godly discernment to be able to distinguish between truth and error...God will give you that.
He is able.
Praise God.
I can understand the problem of translating God's word into other languages and have often thought about that myself.
First, I believe God can and has inspired believers, those who are born again, born of the spirit to translate his word into foreign languages. Those who are not born of the spirit will not be able to translate His word in the same manner as those who are directed by the Holy Spirit.
Second, if any translator is beginning with a corrupt version, that is, any version other than the KJV which we have today, he/she , in turn will produce a corrupt translation no matter what language. It will contain some of Gods word, perhaps even enough to be effective, but it will not BE God's perfect word.
There will be some, several on this board, many of whom sound like very wise bible school graduates, who will tell you there is no perfect, preserved word today. That the perfect word was contained only in the original Greek/Hebrew manuscripts and they do not exist today. Please do not believe that!
God has preserved His word perfect for us today in the KJV, every word exactly where He wants it to be, saying exactly what He wants it to say. Furthermore, looking back at the chain of translations from the Textus Receptus to our KJV today was perfectly reliable. God can do that!! God did do that!!
If the translators begin with that perfect word, and are guided by the Holy Spirit, they will have no difficulty translating that Word into any language used on planet earth, perfect and without error.
It does not take a Greek/Hebrew scholar, even a bible school graduate to know that we serve a God who is able. He did preserve His word without error for all to read, believe and apply. Be thankful we do not have the original today. Somebody would be making a lot of money on that!! As it is, book publishers are making a lot of money on every new "Bible" that comes off the presses each day. Only the KJV (Auth 1611) does not have a copyright.
We must also never forget that Satan, the greatest manipulator, conn artist, deceiver of all time, is directly responsible for all this confusion. What better way to confuse believers in the way that he has? He is the one who has said "God's word is no longer clear, I will give you a new "God's Word" that will be easy to read and, furthermore, I will give you a new one every year or two that says different things so you can have one that says whatever you want it to say".
Satan, through unholy men has done that, while God, the final champion, the victorious one, has provided for us the perfect translation in our language.
The KJV has been sufficient for me, a salesman of average intelligence, an average guy on the street, saved by grace. I love the old language of the KJV and have no problem in determining what God is saying to me from that reliable Word.
It is, however, going to be nigh unto impossible to get our young people back into the word, memorizing verses, etc as they once did prior to all this confusion.
This is one more sign of the end-times.
If you ask for Godly discernment to be able to distinguish between truth and error...God will give you that.
He is able.
Praise God.
Actually the KJV did at one time have a copyright from the crown of England but it has run out. It was the Authorized version of the Church of England and was intended to promote the Anglican faith meaning it had the seal and copyright of the Throne of England. The Puritans would not even bring it on the Mayflower. There are many translation errors in it as with any translation. No translation can be error free. The King James has neen a great translation but I believe the KJV translators would be embarassed over the idolatry shown to it by KJV Onlyites. You can depend on the KJV but do not uplift it over the Greek and Hebrew else you claim the KJV translators to have more authority than the Biblical writers. It should be noted that King James himself certaintly was a ungodly king over England and many historians state he was a homosexual.
[ May 01, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]
[ May 01, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Alex H. Mullins wrote:
First, I believe God can and has inspired believers...to translate his word into foreign languages.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where do you get this theology? God doesn't inspire translations. This is an unscriptural belief.
2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." It says scripture is given (originally) by inspiration, it doesn't say translations will be given by inspiration. Translations are only "inspired" so far as they accurately reflect what the origninal says.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Those who are not born of the spirit will not be able to translate His word in the same manner as those who are directed by the Holy Spirit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, where do you get this? Greek is Greek. It doesn't take a believer to translate it; it is a language. How did we get Homer, etc. translated into English from the Greek? It is entirely possible that the best translator from Greek to English might not be a Christian. However, you are proceeding on the premise of "inspired" translation, which does not exist except in the mind of the KJVO.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There will be some, several on this board, many of whom sound like very wise bible school graduates, who will tell you there is no perfect, preserved word today.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, there are many who will tell you that there is no perfect translation of the original Greek. Furthermore, your words betray your contempt for things intellectual that is typical of hard-line KJVOs.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Be thankful we do not have the original today.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yea, I'm sure you and all of KJVOdom is glad; it would disprove your man-made doctrine.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Only the KJV (Auth 1611) does not have a copyright.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're right, but it did. See the following link:
The KJV Is A Copyrighted Translation
The new translations have copyrights. So what?! This is to protect their work from alteration, not to make them money, as you suggest (every MV that I know is put out by a non-profit organization).
Alex, you have a habit of bringing up a point and then going into a diatribe similar to this,
"MVs are evil...they cause confusion...MVs are of the devil because they came from Westcott & Hort who were evil...the texts behind the MVs are corrupt and of Satan...God preserved his one word in the KJV...it is the Bible for the English speaking people...yada, yada, yada."
You never give any evidence. You bring up a difference between the KJV and MVs and proclaim the KJV correct/pure/preserved/inspired and the MV corrupt/evil/of the devil. You will not get into an argument about specifics because you can't defend your position with the facts.
We know you believe it. Stop saying it over and over again and get on with proving it! Let's talk specifics. You want to talk Westcott & Hort, let's to it. You want to talk TR vs. CT vs. MT, let's do it. Simply repeating your opinions without evidence over and over does not validate them.
Let's talk specifics,
First, I believe God can and has inspired believers...to translate his word into foreign languages.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where do you get this theology? God doesn't inspire translations. This is an unscriptural belief.
2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." It says scripture is given (originally) by inspiration, it doesn't say translations will be given by inspiration. Translations are only "inspired" so far as they accurately reflect what the origninal says.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Those who are not born of the spirit will not be able to translate His word in the same manner as those who are directed by the Holy Spirit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again, where do you get this? Greek is Greek. It doesn't take a believer to translate it; it is a language. How did we get Homer, etc. translated into English from the Greek? It is entirely possible that the best translator from Greek to English might not be a Christian. However, you are proceeding on the premise of "inspired" translation, which does not exist except in the mind of the KJVO.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There will be some, several on this board, many of whom sound like very wise bible school graduates, who will tell you there is no perfect, preserved word today.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, there are many who will tell you that there is no perfect translation of the original Greek. Furthermore, your words betray your contempt for things intellectual that is typical of hard-line KJVOs.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Be thankful we do not have the original today.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yea, I'm sure you and all of KJVOdom is glad; it would disprove your man-made doctrine.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Only the KJV (Auth 1611) does not have a copyright.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're right, but it did. See the following link:
The KJV Is A Copyrighted Translation
The new translations have copyrights. So what?! This is to protect their work from alteration, not to make them money, as you suggest (every MV that I know is put out by a non-profit organization).
Alex, you have a habit of bringing up a point and then going into a diatribe similar to this,
"MVs are evil...they cause confusion...MVs are of the devil because they came from Westcott & Hort who were evil...the texts behind the MVs are corrupt and of Satan...God preserved his one word in the KJV...it is the Bible for the English speaking people...yada, yada, yada."
You never give any evidence. You bring up a difference between the KJV and MVs and proclaim the KJV correct/pure/preserved/inspired and the MV corrupt/evil/of the devil. You will not get into an argument about specifics because you can't defend your position with the facts.
We know you believe it. Stop saying it over and over again and get on with proving it! Let's talk specifics. You want to talk Westcott & Hort, let's to it. You want to talk TR vs. CT vs. MT, let's do it. Simply repeating your opinions without evidence over and over does not validate them.
Let's talk specifics,
Trinity,
One more quick link for you about the "God forbid" issue. You seem to believe that the Greek supports this reading. Read this and then we'll discuss it. BTW, if you take out the 15 'God forbid's in the KJV, there are 15 of your "omissions" from the KJV that turn out to actually be correct.
God Forbid!
Let it [not] be,
One more quick link for you about the "God forbid" issue. You seem to believe that the Greek supports this reading. Read this and then we'll discuss it. BTW, if you take out the 15 'God forbid's in the KJV, there are 15 of your "omissions" from the KJV that turn out to actually be correct.
God Forbid!
Let it [not] be,
DocCas
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
Actually the KJV did at one time have a copyright from the crown of England but it has run out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not so. The "Crown Patent In Perpetuity", according to British Law, will remain in force in Great Brittain until 50 years after the demise of the British Crown. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There are many translation errors in it as with any translation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Would you care to post them to the "Bible Versions/Translations - Errors in the Bible" forum? I have cleaned out a lot of the dead wood from the topic and brought it back to the top so it will be easy to find. I look forward to a good discussion of the KJV and its perceived strength and short comings.
[ May 01, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
Actually the KJV did at one time have a copyright from the crown of England but it has run out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not so. The "Crown Patent In Perpetuity", according to British Law, will remain in force in Great Brittain until 50 years after the demise of the British Crown. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There are many translation errors in it as with any translation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Would you care to post them to the "Bible Versions/Translations - Errors in the Bible" forum? I have cleaned out a lot of the dead wood from the topic and brought it back to the top so it will be easy to find. I look forward to a good discussion of the KJV and its perceived strength and short comings.
[ May 01, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trinity26:
Blade,
One last thing. Why should I go to that sight after the wrong way you responded to the post before you? God Forbid, amen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What are you talking about "the wrong way you responded to the post before you?" Am I missing something here. Was I offensive or are you asserting I was in error?
As to the sites, it is abundantly clear to me that you have read [exclusively] KJVO material. Here is a chance to look at the other side and respond to it. I have studied both sides very well (although I lack expertise in Greek and Hebrew, but have a Strong's and other references) and I am familiar with the popular arguments of both sides.
You should look at the other side of the argument, regardless of your opinion of me. To do anything less is not research.
In fact, I believe that part of you may be scared; I was. You will see that KJVOism, as you seem to hold to it, often distorts the facts about Westcott & Hort, modern scholars, previous scholars, the Greek itself, and a great many other things.
At the very least, even if you don't change your mind on one detail, you will be able to argue from substance (actually having seen anti-KJVO arguments) rather than ignorance.
Enlighten yourself,
Blade,
One last thing. Why should I go to that sight after the wrong way you responded to the post before you? God Forbid, amen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What are you talking about "the wrong way you responded to the post before you?" Am I missing something here. Was I offensive or are you asserting I was in error?
As to the sites, it is abundantly clear to me that you have read [exclusively] KJVO material. Here is a chance to look at the other side and respond to it. I have studied both sides very well (although I lack expertise in Greek and Hebrew, but have a Strong's and other references) and I am familiar with the popular arguments of both sides.
You should look at the other side of the argument, regardless of your opinion of me. To do anything less is not research.
In fact, I believe that part of you may be scared; I was. You will see that KJVOism, as you seem to hold to it, often distorts the facts about Westcott & Hort, modern scholars, previous scholars, the Greek itself, and a great many other things.
At the very least, even if you don't change your mind on one detail, you will be able to argue from substance (actually having seen anti-KJVO arguments) rather than ignorance.
Enlighten yourself,
DocCas
New Member
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
[QBCheck out Romans, beginning with Ch. 3, vv. 4, 6, and 31. That phrase the KJV misstranslates "God forbid" is closer in all of these translations referred to in the above pasting, with NAS expectedly the most accurate, "May it never be." The KJV has been defended here as using a "dynamic equivalent." The fact that in the world the name of God is often inserted to make a point (e.g., 'Oh my God!; 'Oh God, no!') does not justify throwing His name into a passage, in which it is not there, to make a point.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are correct in saying the word "God" (theos) does not appear in the Greek. However, the words "me genoito" in the second aorist middle deponent optative are a very, very strong statement referring to something that is eternally forbidden. The KJV translation committee, recognizing the impotence of man, while believing in the Omnipotence of God, understood that no man could eternally forbid something from happening, but the Eternal God could, thus their very appropriate translation "God forbid." A much better, because much stronger, rending then the modern versions (which sounds almost like wishful thinking), and completely in keeping with the unique meaning of the Greek term.
[QBCheck out Romans, beginning with Ch. 3, vv. 4, 6, and 31. That phrase the KJV misstranslates "God forbid" is closer in all of these translations referred to in the above pasting, with NAS expectedly the most accurate, "May it never be." The KJV has been defended here as using a "dynamic equivalent." The fact that in the world the name of God is often inserted to make a point (e.g., 'Oh my God!; 'Oh God, no!') does not justify throwing His name into a passage, in which it is not there, to make a point.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are correct in saying the word "God" (theos) does not appear in the Greek. However, the words "me genoito" in the second aorist middle deponent optative are a very, very strong statement referring to something that is eternally forbidden. The KJV translation committee, recognizing the impotence of man, while believing in the Omnipotence of God, understood that no man could eternally forbid something from happening, but the Eternal God could, thus their very appropriate translation "God forbid." A much better, because much stronger, rending then the modern versions (which sounds almost like wishful thinking), and completely in keeping with the unique meaning of the Greek term.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:
It's really very sad to see so many "Christians" pushing the modern versions. It's to be expected, though, considering the last days apostasy predicted in the Bible.
We have the preserved Word of God in the English language in the King James Bible. The text from which it is translated from is dependable. The new versions on the market today are translated from corrupted text, not the same text that the translators of the King James Bible used.
Also, the King James Bible was translated from the very words of the traditional Hebrew and Greek text by way of verbal and formal equivalence. The new versions such as the New American Standard, New International Version, New King James Version, New Living Translation and others were translated using the dynamic equivalence method, or paraphrase.
If you want to have a Bible that is a paraphrase of corrupted text, then use the new versions. If you want the inerrant Word of God, then keep your King James Bible !
Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Ye Must Be Born Again<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your assertion that the NASB and NKJV being dyanaimc equivalents are direct lies and makes you guilty of bearing false witness.
And you speak of a last days apostasy where people supposedly want everyone to have one religion with one Bible? Praytell, isn't that what the KJVos want? Everyone to be IFB KJVOnly? This sounds like the apostate church movement to me.
It's really very sad to see so many "Christians" pushing the modern versions. It's to be expected, though, considering the last days apostasy predicted in the Bible.
We have the preserved Word of God in the English language in the King James Bible. The text from which it is translated from is dependable. The new versions on the market today are translated from corrupted text, not the same text that the translators of the King James Bible used.
Also, the King James Bible was translated from the very words of the traditional Hebrew and Greek text by way of verbal and formal equivalence. The new versions such as the New American Standard, New International Version, New King James Version, New Living Translation and others were translated using the dynamic equivalence method, or paraphrase.
If you want to have a Bible that is a paraphrase of corrupted text, then use the new versions. If you want the inerrant Word of God, then keep your King James Bible !
Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Ye Must Be Born Again<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your assertion that the NASB and NKJV being dyanaimc equivalents are direct lies and makes you guilty of bearing false witness.
And you speak of a last days apostasy where people supposedly want everyone to have one religion with one Bible? Praytell, isn't that what the KJVos want? Everyone to be IFB KJVOnly? This sounds like the apostate church movement to me.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:
I said, "Christians" because many professing believers today are really not believers at all.
Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
Ye Must Be Born Again<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Especially those of you who love and talk about the King of England more than the King of Kings and pollute the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ through attacking God's Word. Reminds me of what the difference is between KJVOnly folks and Bible hating liberals - NOTHING.
[ June 08, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]
I said, "Christians" because many professing believers today are really not believers at all.
Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
Ye Must Be Born Again<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Especially those of you who love and talk about the King of England more than the King of Kings and pollute the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ through attacking God's Word. Reminds me of what the difference is between KJVOnly folks and Bible hating liberals - NOTHING.
[ June 08, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]
>>You are correct in saying the word "God" (theos) does not appear in the Greek. However, the words "me genoito" in the second aorist middle deponent optative are a very, very strong statement referring to something that is eternally forbidden. The KJV translation committee, recognizing the impotence of man, while believing in the Omnipotence of God, understood that no man could eternally forbid something from happening, but the Eternal God could, thus their very appropriate translation "God forbid." A much better, because much stronger, rending then the modern versions (which sounds almost like wishful thinking), and completely in keeping with the unique meaning of the Greek term.>>
But... but... but...
Dear Bro Thomas, your explanation could
have been lifted from an introductory
page of a Modern Version giving the justification(s) for their "dynamic equivalence" of certain words, phrases.
HankD
But... but... but...
Dear Bro Thomas, your explanation could
have been lifted from an introductory
page of a Modern Version giving the justification(s) for their "dynamic equivalence" of certain words, phrases.
HankD
Another expression used by the KJV translators with little or no support from the Hebrew and Greek both is "would God" or
"Would to God ..."
KJV 1 Corinthians 4:8 Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God
ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.
HankD
"Would to God ..."
KJV 1 Corinthians 4:8 Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God
ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.
HankD