A little thought

[robycop3]

"Still Learning" needsta "still learn" that KJVO is man-made and false. No amounta man-made excuses is gonna make it true since it has absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.

 

[wfdfiremedic]

I would state this as my personal belief: If we are to arrive at the actual meaning of the Greek NT scriptures, they need to be as literal as possible in interpretation. We can then argue over how to interpret the English, but in essence, we need as little as "man made interpretation" as possible and the best scholarly research into the actual english equivalent. Therefore, I believe the NASB to be the most accurate in terms of a translation.


For instance, look at John 1:18, why does the ESV not place a literal interpretation on this? They make note of it, in the footnotes, but then compare their translation to the NWT...it makes one think.

 

[wfdfiremedic]

Here is John 1:18


18(AL) No one has ever seen God;(AM) the only God,[d] who is at the Father’s side,[e](AN) he has made him known. ESV translation.



No one has seen God at any time; (AF)the only begotten God who is (AG)in the bosom of the Father, (AH)He has explained Him. NASB translation.

18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. NWT translation...


I would state that the NASB accurately reflects the doctrine of the deity of Christ by stating that Christ is in essence in the Father, and therefore holds the same deity. If you look at the Arians message they will translate the passage as do the NWT. Therefore, we need literal interpretation. The ESV makes me extremely mad in this passage.

FYI... the JW's believe Christ is another God seperate from Jehovah God, and is subject to him. Therefore, such a passage become vital in doctrinal belief.

 

[wfdfiremedic]

As one can see, a literal interpetation is a must. Look at the bracketed text in the NWT. Why would they add the bracketed text? They add such because they want a "positional" belief which states that Christ is not God. When we reference the NASB we can see clearly that they interpret it as Christ being of the same essence. Of course, this not the MT, nor the TR, but we can see from the CT that literal interpretation is vital. I am not arguing that the more "dynamic" translations are not good, but we need to see the differences.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Is still learning still reloading? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Steven2006]

Is still learning still reloading? :smilewinkgrin:

Hopefully he is doing some serious examination of the issue. Unfortunately there is good odds you are correct and he is scouring the internet for rebuttals, he can post.

 

[sag38]

Will he find anything new except for the same old same old that you find on most KJVO sites?

 

[AntennaFarmer]

OK, so i was thinking today that if one believes that the KJV is the "only innerant word of God", what seperates that from the JW's that believe the NWT is " the only word of God." For instance, I cannot reproduce another bible that is translated in the exact same manner as the NWT. Nor can we produce another bible that is translated in the exact manner as the KJV. Therefore, is that not a major problem? I see cults as those that believe a single translation as the "word of God." In fact, one needs to utilize a number of translations to prove sound theology.

God bless,
Chris

There is some kind of logical fallacy there. The KJV has nothing to do with the NWT and KJVO ain't JW.

Both Orthodox Christianity and Islam claim to be exclusive paths to salvation. Does that prove both wrong? I don't think so.

 

[Rippon]

• 2 As the King's Speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's Speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.



Isn't it saying, what I have been saying all along....
And I quote....the KJV....”is the Word of God”:
And regardless of what language God’s Word is translated into, it....”still the King's Speech”

Give me some help here, if I am wrong.

The Word of God is not the word of some earthly king.(Especially as is the case with the wicked King James of old England.)

 

[franklinmonroe]

I would state this as my personal belief: If we are to arrive at the actual meaning of the Greek NT scriptures, they need to be as literal as possible in interpretation. We can then argue over how to interpret the English, but in essence, we need as little as "man made interpretation" as possible and the best scholarly research into the actual english equivalent. Therefore, I believe the NASB to be the most accurate in terms of a translation. ...

Do you favor the NASB because you think it is the most literal? Wasn't the ASV even more literal? What about other versions that claim to be literal? How literal is 'literal'?

 

[mckestev]

The problem with the term "literal" is that it needs defined. By literal do you mean word-for-word? When I first started with Greek, I learned that a "literal" word-for-word translation makes little sense in English and sounds like Yoda from Star Wars. Try reading an interlinear sometime if you want to see what I mean. Also there are idioms in Greek and Hebrew that make no sense when translated word-for-word into English.

Or maybe by "literal" you mean what the author (say, Paul) meant? But when you try to translate this way (call it thought-for-thought if you want) you sometimes have to interpret ambiguous passages for the reader when there are other possible meanings. At best in those situations you can give a footnote.

Translation is hard work and all translations, even King James, have some level of interpretation done for you. A question I have about King James is, why did the translators choose to transliterate baptizo (baptize) rather than translate it as immerse or dip? Maybe because of their practice of infant baptism by pouring/sprinkling? I don't know, but it's something to think about.

 

[robycop3]

I believe it was because of Archbishop Bancroft's rule for the translators that traditional church words be retained, and baptize was one of those words.

 

[Robert Snow]

I love the KJV, mainly because I was saved at at KJVO church and for the first several years after being saved it was the only translation I used. However there is a twist. Shortly after being saved, I bought a New Scofield Reference Bible, which had some word changes. My pastor never said a negative word about this to me and I studied that bible for probably two years day and night. I could not get enough, and God blessed greatly. Later I bought an Old Scofield bible and used it then.

I realized that if only the KJV with no word changes was the bible, why would God have blessed me like He did while I was using the New Scofield.

Now, although I still love the KJV, I read the NIV, NLT and the NKJV also.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

...
A question I have about King James is, why did the translators choose to transliterate baptizo (baptize) rather than translate it as immerse or dip? Maybe because of their practice of infant baptism by pouring/sprinkling? I don't know, but it's something to think about.

It was because the word baptize had long since entered into the English Language. It wasn't exactly a transliteration.

You will find that most English versions old and new use the word. KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV & ESV are examples.

 

[robycop3]

I love the KJV, mainly because I was saved at at KJVO church and for the first several years after being saved it was the only translation I used. However there is a twist. Shortly after being saved, I bought a New Scofield Reference Bible, which had some word changes. My pastor never said a negative word about this to me and I studied that bible for probably two years day and night. I could not get enough, and God blessed greatly. Later I bought an Old Scofield bible and used it then.

I realized that if only the KJV with no word changes was the bible, why would God have blessed me like He did while I was using the New Scofield.

Now, although I still love the KJV, I read the NIV, NLT and the NKJV also.

It's good that you've seen that KJVO is entirely a MAN-MADE doctrine, without one quark of evidence from GOD to support it.

 

[rsr]

Well the publishers of these Bibles fixed her wagon good:
You see Gail had assumed, that since these were Bibles, that her book would forever be a testimony of what they were doing.

But what happened, was that when the following issues of these MV’s came out, the publishers had doctored them up.

Well, since you made this claim, what evidence do you have to support it? Which versions changed maiden to virgin?

 

[Chessic]

Hi wfdfiremedic

You asked........

One big thing: The biggest thing.

The KJV, will always be what it is.
While every cult bible, can and is changed, as the cults leadership or doctrine changes.

(Kind of like the MV’s)

I don't understand. I'm no expert on this, but my understanding is the KJV has been changed hundreds of times, including some changes for doctrinal purposes.

And didn't King James originally commission the translation for the very reason that he disliked the doctrine of the day in certain matters of law and marriage? Wouldn't this suggest a motivation for bias on the part of the translators?

 

[stilllearning]

Hello Chessic

Nice to hear from you.

You asked.........

“I don't understand. I'm no expert on this, but my understanding is the KJV has been changed hundreds of times, including some changes for doctrinal purposes.”

Well part of this is right. The 1611 KJV, did have hundreds of misspelled words & topographical errors, that were slowly corrected over the next 100 years or so, but by 1769 they were finished.

And the 1769 edition of the KJV is basically identical to what is available today.
--------------------------------------------------
You also said.........

“And didn't King James originally commission the translation for the very reason that he disliked the doctrine of the day in certain matters of law and marriage? Wouldn't this suggest a motivation for bias on the part of the translators?”

No! This is just one example of the mountain of mis-information, that has been circulated for years, about the KJV.
(It is not true.)

The reason this Bible was named after King James, is because back in 1611, when some Godly men wanted to start the work on this new translation, the vast majority of those in charge, were against the idea.
So they petitioned the King, and he made a proclamation, that this new translation work should be done.
The KJV Bible would have never come to pass, if the king hadn’t put his authority behind it.
--------------------------------------------------
When the translators finished the work, they wrote a letter to King James(which is found at the front of many KJV Bibles today), thanking him for his help.

In that letter they explain, why they needed his help.........
“.......So that, if on the one side we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor Instruments to make Gods Holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness: or if on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their Anvil...”


These same two kinds of people, are the ones who continue to badmouth the KJV, because they either want to keep people in darkness or they don’t want there to be an established “Word of God”, that says what it means and means what it says.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I don't understand. I'm no expert on this, but my understanding is the KJV has been changed hundreds of times, including some changes for doctrinal purposes.

And didn't King James originally commission the translation for the very reason that he disliked the doctrine of the day in certain matters of law and marriage? Wouldn't this suggest a motivation for bias on the part of the translators?

Chessic, stilllearning may not be responding to any of us soon.

The KJV has NOT been "changed hundreds of times". There has been some minor and two major updated editions of the KJV text which primarily deal with matters of orthography. I am not aware that the KJV has ever been changed for "doctrinal purposes" [unless you are referring to something like the 'Inspired Version' in which Joseph Smith (the Mormon founder) edited the KJV at his whim].

King James probably originally commissioned the translation for several reasons (political and otherwise); but I believe you are confusing King Henry VIII motivation to break with the Pope over marriage and divorce. Certainly, all translators have bias to a lesser or greater degree.

 

[Chessic]

Thank you both for your responses. I want you to know I respect the translation and am not trying to argue against it. My questions are honest ones.

I'd like to hear you comment on the inclusion of the Apocrypha, and it's later exclusion. This is an example of the doctrinal changes I had in mind.

Henry VIII is certainly an example of a monarch with an interest in changing the doctrine of his day, but I believe James I had certain issues with the authority of the Pope and Roman church which he wanted to combat with a new translation, did he not? Or am I confused my monarchs?

Here is a snippet from Wikipedia on the translation that shows what I mean in my worry about bias: (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version)

"In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.[7]

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England."

Several points I get from this quote (and don't necessarily believe, I just have questions about them):
1. the translation was written "as a response?"
2. the king gave instructions to the translators? on how to "conform...?"
3. Every translator was from the Church of England?

When I read these sorts of things, even if I trust the source, which I don't necessarily in this case, I try to keep the questions in perspective, not make quick judgments. But there are questions raised, at least for me personally. I would, after all, not be overly interested in a translation written today based on the above guidelines in today's church of England. Why would I think the same church of 400 years ago was any better of a foundation for a new translation?

I appreciate your comments.