1. 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!

Answer your belief on the KJV

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Askjo, Dec 7, 2003.

?

Answer your belief on the KJV

  1. Psalms 12:6-7 refer to the KJV

    16 vote(s)
    100.0%

  2. Psalms 12:6-7 refer to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Top Posters
Page 3 of 3
  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,399
    Likes Received:
    553
    Faith:
    Baptist
    S&T - God DID preserve His Word. That's why we know and point out the errors of various translations.

    Erasmus did much good. But also much evil. HE looked at a few Greek documents (and Latin ;) ) and made his text. Should not WE do the same and carefully evaluate and discern God's preserved Word?

    Or did God do ANOTHER work of inspiration in 1611?
     
    #41 Dr. Bob, Dec 9, 2003
  2. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    [/b][/QUOTE]The translators put them in to clarify what they thought needed more explanation than what the greek or hebrew said. They thought that some sentences would not make much sense without the added words. [/QB][/QUOTE]

    What difference would it make? Originally, God told Elijah that He had 7k men who hadn't bowed to Baal-no image mentioned. Sure, there were images of Baal, as there were for almost every make-believe god, but what was clarified by the AV translators' ADDING to God's word as it was presented to them in the mss they were working with? Why not simply translate it as written, which basically followed the original statement God made to Elijah?

    So much for the KJVOs' claims of perfection...
     
    #42 robycop3, Dec 9, 2003
  3. Archangel7

    Archangel7 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    None, because our eternal salvation is based on faith in Christ, not on whether Rev. 22:19 reads "book or life" or "tree of life."
     
    #43 Archangel7, Dec 9, 2003
  4. TC

    TC Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The translators put them in to clarify what they thought needed more explanation than what the greek or hebrew said. They thought that some sentences would not make much sense without the added words. </font>[/QUOTE]That was the normal practice of the KJV translators, and in the majority of cases the italicized words are legitimate. However, Rom. 11:4 makes perfect sense *without* the words added by the KJV translators (as just about every other English translation before and after 1611 amply illustrates). So why did the KJV translators *add* unnecessary words to the word of God? </font>[/QUOTE]You have to ask them. I simply restated what they said in the translators to the reader - which is missing in all modern KJV's. If people would read that, KJVOnlyism wouldn't exist.
     
    #44 TC, Dec 9, 2003
  5. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    S&T, Sorry to confuse you with ith KJVO crowd. If you notice in your other bibles that it does not say anything about a "name" taken from the tree of life, but they use the words
    "share" - NIV,GNB
    "part" - CEV,ASV,ALT,MSG
    "Portion"- GW, ISV

    Also notice that KJV doesn't even use the word "name", but it uses "part". Why not use the word "name" in that context.
    I just noticed something else in the Strongs lexicon the word "book" or biblos is defined as
    "properly the inner bark of the papyrus plant, that is, ( by implication ) a sheet or scroll of writing: book" (boldness mine)

    I wonder if there is some conection between bark and tree, or am I "barking up the wrong tree?"

    Anyway, since in vs 14 KJV mentions "tree" that sets the context for the remaining verses.
     
    #45 tinytim, Dec 10, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 3
Loading...