Beyond Ruckman?

I have read of all the revivals that have come to this country and all the things that God has done here in the United States when we were mostly a nation of one Bible, the KJB, and what has happened to this nation when we went to whatever bible "works" for you.
I trust the King James Bible 100%


-------------------------------------------------

Now there's a jump in logic!

 

You forgot that as a result many led to the Amana community, the Mormons and JW's and a host of others. That is what happens when people are spiritually open with no follow-up/discipleship. They too often go down the wrong path.

Your KJV had nothing to do with spirituality.

The early Christians did not even own a Bible.

 

Hebrews 12:1-3, the Greek is different than most English Translations, especially the KJ. What is the most important thing that we do, according to the KJ. "lay aside the world" or "run with endurance".
The only primary verb in the first two verses is "run" everything else is a participle. The theology is crisper and tighter in the Greek.

Does it really change any doctrine, well maybe, maybe not. We run, focusing on Christ, he then helps us lay aside the world. Definitely, grace and faith. If we could lay aside the world then run, it really appears to be faith + works.

 

Hugh, you MUST surely be concerned; otherwise you wouldn'ta posted here.

Were the good things that happened in this nation the result of the KJV, or the result of oeople overall being more godly? There was no ACLU back then.

Were the "great revivals" the result of the KJV or the work of the HOLY SPIRIT?

Where does GOD proclaim that "the KJV is the ONLY OFFICIAL English version"?

Well, at least you don't approve of Ruckman's antics.

 

MV's and critical texts began to gain acceptance around 1900.

The number of professing born again Christians increased in both number and by percentage from the beginning of the 20th century to the end.

http://www.forerunner.com/champion/X0036_World_Evangelization.html

Here is an interesting summary:

FTR, the total population of the US was less than 100 million in 1900.

http://www.epm.org/articles/generous_giving.html

It apparently doesn't take a "great revival" for masses of people to be saved... nor does it seem that God has gone inactive since MV's came on the scene but rather very much to the contrary.

This sounds like the Catholic argument in the "confusion" caused by non-RCC Christian sects.

Similarly they might argue, "and what has happened to this world when we went to whatever denomination "works" for you."

But your point is wrong-headed to start with. Few Christians take a "whatever Bible works for you" attitude toward the scriptures... and especially not the Baptists here.

 

Amen! me, too!

 

God's word says differently in:

Prov. 3:5,6, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight.

Hebrews 11:6, "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

James 1:5, "But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him."

I trust the holy God, not the book. I trust the giver and not the gift.

 

Anything that may be said in one language may be said in another. There may be no concise and elegant way to say it, but it can be said.

 

"Anything that may be said in one language may be said in another."
"
Eventually, often languages need to be modified by adopting loanwords for example to handle new concepts.

 

I can readily understand why, for instance, there might be no word for "supralapsarian" in some pygmy tribe's language, or a word for "fuel injector." But I question whether a concept can be inexpressible in another language. Human experience is uniform throughout all races, places, and times. That's why we can read classical stories from China (translated, of course!) and understand the characters' feelings and actions.

So I still suspect that anything that can be said in one human language can be said in any other.

But maybe I'm off-topic.

 

Anything that may be said in one language may be said in another. There may be no concise and elegant way to say it, but it can be said. </font>[/QUOTE]That's not always true. Need to ask some Chinese people why they use some English when they write in their language.

 

For the same reason we use some chinese when we order take out. Borrowed words may be the simplest method to incorporate a foreign idea into a language, but that doesn't mean they could not just invent a new chinese word to mean whatever it is they want to say. We are supposed to believe that there are ideas in greek that can't be expressed adequately in english, but I agree with Pipedude, if you can say it in Greek, you can say it in English, even if that means incorporating a Greek word into the English language. What is the English word for gyro?

 

Helicopter in Greek means sun beater. Does that adequately explain helicopter.

Accurately translate the differences between Como estas and Como esta from Spanish to English.

Those who have translated the Bible do not do a very adequate job in translating the difference between a third class and first class conditional senetence. Usually a prohibitive in Greek in the NT is not translated at all as a prohibitive imperative in English.

Also the differences in the words for love are not adequately translated at all in the discourse betweeen Jesus and Peter in Jn 21:15-17. The two Greek words used in that discourse are translated by one inadequate word in English.

 

I think the difference between the two words for love are negligible as evidenced by their usage throughout scripture, and even in that passage itself.

John 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
John 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
John 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

Even these five verses do not use the same word. Without looking, can you tell me which is which?

 

Better look again at scripture.

To say such a thing is to discount God's word. Jesus thought it significant to use two different words. And you call that negligible?

 

To claim it is negligible is like saying the love you have for your wife is the same as a close friend.

Four of those verses (John 13:23, John 19:26, John 21:7, John 21:20) use the same word and John 20:2 uses a different word. In some cases there is a huge difference in the meaning of those words and in other cases there is not. You won't know the difference until you look at scripture and study it in scripture in context and the context of its usage in the real world during that time.

 

Sorry to be off-topic, but it's so much fun!

These counter-examples of "untranslatables" are really good, but they really only demonstrate that there may be no concise and elegant way to translate an expression. My little $.02 was just the claim that anything that can be expressed in one language can be expressed in another.

For instance, as in the case of Como esta, it could be expressed in English as "How are you, and I mean that in a way that takes into account your status in relation to me." Of course it is inelegant and none of us would actually put that forth as a translation, but it does express the concept in English.

The difficulty in making a usable translation comes from this fact. We can express it in English, but it might take half a page and we cannot do that--so we have to choose our tradeoffs and hope for the best.