Chapter and Verse

Trotter · Oct 29, 2003

My pastor uses the KJV (Scofield{?}, I think). I normally carry a NKJV. When I follow along with the reading, I get a deeper understanding of the text because of the differences that comparing the two translations gives (even though the KJV and NKJV are very similar). My NASB is part of a parallel (w/ KJV, Amplified, and NIV), and is much too large to carry. My RSV sits on a shelf, only to be pulled down to get a sixth opinion or to check out the other, non-inspired books of the time between the testaments.

I know of several in our church who use the NIV, but have no problem keeping up with the sermon.

The point is, although the exact wording may be different, the meaning and intent stay the same. Multiple translations do not bring confusion, but rather they bring clarity and illumination to the reader.

Personally, I dislike DE's and paraphrases intensely. Give me a word-for-word (or as close as I can get) any day.

In Christ,
Trotter

Michael Hobbs · Oct 30, 2003

HankD wrote:
I made an assumption and for that I am sorry.

Apology accepted, my brother.

HankD wrote:
do you believe that the 1611KJV is the re-inspired Word of God and supercedes the Greek and Hebrew of the original language manuscripts?

I believe God worked a mighty deed when He assembled the KJV translators and used them to translate His word into English. But does the English translation supercede the original manuscripts? Of course not. It is possible that it may supercede an individual manuscript with obvious errors, but it cannot supercede the entire collection.

Ransom wrote:
1. It is useless for you to challenge someone to provide chapter and verse that something is not true

AMEN and AMEN! Now you did pay attention to the initial purpose of this thread, right? Dr. Bob challenged us to provide a chapter and verse to show something that doesn't exist. That's why my initial post in this thread called it a "strawman argument". And look, I didn't need to revert to blasphemy to do it.

Ed Edwards wrote:
Actually a history of those 400 years:
400BC to 1AD is contained in my KJV1611
ILn dtghe books of 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees.

Are you suggesting that the Maccabees should be considered writings inspired by the Holy Spirit?
And exactly how does that relate to my point that the old Hebrew wasn't revised for the 1st century A.D. Jews?

Johnv wrote:
what does the KJV mean when it referrs to "brass"? What does the KJV means when it referrs to the crop "corn"? What does the KJV mean when it says "suburbs"?

corn = grain
suburbs = plains or fields
brass = some metal alloy, I do not know exactly what it means without looking it up. My guess would be copper or bronze.

For a little fairness, why don't you define these "modern" NIV words:

annotations
carnelian
cooing
encrouch
filigree
goiim
hoopoe
maxiums
overweening
porphyry
rawboned
satraps
terebinth
verdant

Michael Hobbs · Oct 30, 2003

For those that may not know what a strawman argument is, here is the definition as defined by Steven Den Beste:

The essence of a strawman argument is to caricature and distort the position of your opponent and present it in such a way that any reasonable person can't agree with it, in hopes that your opponent or his supporters will take your statement of his position as correct and attempt to defend it anyway. By so doing, you force them onto ground most advantageous for you.

E.g. "Just chapter and verse that says the AV is THE ONLY English Version."

Anti-Alexandrian · Oct 30, 2003

E.g. "Just chapter and verse that says the AV is THE ONLY English Version."

According to the Websters dictionary:

"straw man
Function: noun
Date: 1896
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
2 : a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction"

Pastor Larry · Oct 30, 2003

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
Dr. Bob challenged us to provide a chapter and verse to show something that doesn't exist.

This is right and it shows the fallacy of the KJVO position. It doesn't exist and therefore it cannot be proven.

The question itself is not a straw man for this reason: THe KJVOs are claiming that God only approves of the KJV in English. That is not a strawman claim; it is a real claim by them. Therefore, we are asking where God said that.

A straw man constructs an imaginary position and destroys that. Bob did not construct an imaginary position to strike down. KJVO is not an imaginary position. It is a real position.

When we address KJVOs, we are not distorting their position for our advantage. They are the ones who believe it, not us. We do not need to distort their position. But when someone demands that God approves of only one version, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that God only approves of one version. What we have found out is that God hasn't said anything at all about; it is man who prefers only one version and there is a big difference.

To turn it around, if you asked us to prove that the NIV is the only word of God in English, that would be a straw man because it is an imaginary position. We do not hold that position. Therefore asking us to prove it is a straw man.

The problem here is that you misunderstand what a straw man is and how it applies in this case.

Forever settled in heaven · Oct 30, 2003

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
For a little fairness, why don't you define these "modern" NIV words:


annotations

carnelian

cooing

encrouch

filigree

goiim

hoopoe
[*]maxiums

overweening

porphyry

rawboned

satraps

terebinth

verdant

hmm, there wasn't any "maxiums" in my NIV.

HankD · Oct 30, 2003

Michael wrote:

I believe God worked a mighty deed when He assembled the KJV translators and used them to translate His word into English. But does the English translation supercede the original manuscripts? Of course not. It is possible that it may supercede an individual manuscript with obvious errors, but it cannot supercede the entire collection.

You are not then what has been called by some the "radical" KJVO which hold to a "re-inspiration" of the Scriptures into KJV English which supercedes the Greek and Hebrew.

A further issue:
The Latin Vulgate held sway over the Church for over 1000 years and the Church of Rome taught that the Latin was the "official" or "authorized" version/language of the Scriptures.

It was from this version (not the Greek and Hebrew) that Tyndale (imprisoned for translating the Bible into the "vulgar" tongue of the people) used to translated the Scripture into 14th century English.

Tyndale made reference to the Vulgate in his English translation. He was martyred for his work.

The Vulgate was the basis of several early attempts at an English translation, many KJV readings (1 John 5:7) are from the Vulgate.

Some of the English of the KJV is from these earlier translations of the Vulgate.

Would you say that God did a mighty deed through Jerome when (~400AD) he translated the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures into the Latin Vulgate Version?

Would you say that God used Jerome in the preservation of His Word?

HankD

Michael Hobbs · Oct 30, 2003

Forever settled in heaven wrote:
hmm, there wasn't any "maxiums" in my NIV.

Sorry, my typo. It should have been "maxims".

Michael Hobbs · Oct 30, 2003

By the way, my point in giving the list of NIV words was to show that there is a double standard going on by some of you.

Yes, there are words and phrases in the KJV that some may not understand because their meanings have changed over time.

If it is a "fault" of the KJV, the exact same argument can be used against any modern version.

Ransom · Oct 30, 2003

Michael Hobbs said:

Now you did pay attention to the initial purpose of this thread, right? Dr. Bob challenged us to provide a chapter and verse to show something that doesn't exist.

No, you're the one who isn't paying attention: he asked for "chapter and verse that says the AV is THE ONLY English Version" - in other words, proof of something asserted to be true. It was you who turned it around, demanding that a universal negative be proven, by asking for "chapter and verse that says it isn't."

Since you have chosen not to abandon your fallacious argument, I'll assume that since you cannot provide chapter and verse proving I am not God, I therefore am, and I shall expect the dedication of your firstborn to my service immediately.

ScottEmerson · Oct 30, 2003

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
For a little fairness, why don't you define these "modern" NIV words:


annotations

carnelian

cooing

encrouch

filigree

goiim

hoopoe

maxiums

overweening

porphyry

rawboned

satraps

terebinth

verdant

[/QB]

I know all of these words, and they mean exactly what they were intended to mean. In the case of some of the KJV words, they've completely lost the original meaning - such as "suburbs."

Michael Hobbs · Oct 30, 2003

Ransom wrote:
he asked for "chapter and verse that says the AV is THE ONLY English Version" - in other words, proof of something asserted to be true.

OK, my attempts at searching for "AV is THE ONLY English Version" gives me zero hits outside of this thread. If someone has posted this, please point me to their post. If not, then admit your error. If you can't/won't do either, then don't expect our debate to continue.

Pastor Larry · Oct 30, 2003

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
OK, my attempts at searching for "AV is THE ONLY English Version" gives me zero hits outside of this thread. If someone has posted this, please point me to their post. If not, then admit your error. If you can't/won't do either, then don't expect our debate to continue.

Come on, Michael. Quit playing dumb. It is very unbecoming. Look at the posts of Homebound, Askjo, Anti-Alexandrian, and some others to see this position. If you do not know what this topic is about, then you should have stayed out of it. IN fact, you most likely do know what this topic is about and you are just playing little games here.

Michael Hobbs · Oct 30, 2003

ScottEmerson wrote:
I know all of these words, and they mean exactly what they were intended to mean.

Good for you.

Do you plan on defining them without looking them up in a dictionary?
Since they are in the NIV, shouldn't they be "modern" English words that not only you, but everyone knows and understands?

Michael Hobbs · Oct 30, 2003

Pastor Larry wrote:
Come on, Michael. Quit playing dumb. It is very unbecoming.

Pot, kettle, black. By the way, I'm still waiting on an apology.

Look at the posts of Homebound, Askjo, Anti-Alexandrian, and some others to see this position.

Let me ask these guys to respond to your claim.

TO HOMEBOUND, ASKJO, ANTI-ALEXANDRIAN:

Which of the following best defines your position on MV's?
1. MV's, as a collection, contain 0% of the word of God.
2. MV's, as a collection, contain 100% of the word of God.
3. MV's, as a collection, contain some percentage of the word of God.

And which of the following statements do you believe?
A. The KJV is the only version of God's word that is acceptable for all people today.
B. The KJV is the only version of God's word that is acceptable for English-speaking people today.
C. The KJV is the best English translation available today.

For the record, my answers are 3 and C.
If what Pastor Larry is saying is true, then your positions must be 1 and A.

ScottEmerson · Oct 30, 2003

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> ScottEmerson wrote:
I know all of these words, and they mean exactly what they were intended to mean.

Good for you.

Do you plan on defining them without looking them up in a dictionary?
Since they are in the NIV, shouldn't they be "modern" English words that not only you, but everyone knows and understands? [/QUOTE]I could do that, but I imagine you would claim that I looked them up. I scored a perfect score on my GRE, so let's take it as a given that I know the words.

In any work of literature, there may be difficult words - especially when you are trying for an accurate translation. For example, we read about the satraps in the book of Daniel. A satrap was the head of administration, and was specific to Babylon and Persia. So I have no problem with the NIV translating it accurately as a "satrap." The KJV, I think, does the word injustice, as it would appear to the majority of people reading it in the year 2003 that the people the word is referring to are actually military leaders, when in actuality, they were not. I also looked up the definition of lieutenant, just to see if we could find an accurate depiction, and all of the definitions relate to military people.

To also be fair, a good study Bible will also explain words such as satrap, for those who do not care to look it up.

Scott J · Oct 30, 2003

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Ransom wrote:
he asked for "chapter and verse that says the AV is THE ONLY English Version" - in other words, proof of something asserted to be true.

OK, my attempts at searching for "AV is THE ONLY English Version" gives me zero hits outside of this thread. If someone has posted this, please point me to their post. If not, then admit your error. If you can't/won't do either, then don't expect our debate to continue. [/QUOTE]You are playing semantics.

KJVO's routinely say things that mean that the KJV is the only real Word of God in English. Some will be kind

enough to say that MV's "contain the Word of God" but that only the KJV is the Word of God in English. Others will say that all other versions are "perversions". Others will say that the KJV is the "perfect" Word of God in English with the implication that all others are therefore imperfect.

Ransom probably meant to write something on the order of the KJV being the "only acceptable, real, perfect, true,... Word of God in English." Saying precisely that the AV is the only English Version would take an already ridiculous position into some level of absurdity unknown to human history.

Forever settled in heaven · Oct 30, 2003

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
Good for you.

Do you plan on defining them without looking them up in a dictionary?
Since they are in the NIV, shouldn't they be "modern" English words that not only you, but everyone knows and understands?

actually, u shd ask any KJBO for their usual creative answer (which u can simply adapt for the NIV or any other):

1. the NIV has a built-in dictionary. the context will help u know what a satrap is.

2. if the NIV were so readable, what role's left for the Holy Spirit? those words need to be SPIRITUALLY discerned, man.

3. let's not dumb down God's Word; let's keep it dignified.

4. but my 5-year-old CAN read it, duh!

5. hey, look, the NIV is time-tested n outsells every other bible--that's God's blessing, so stop questioning it.

6. the Flesch-Kincaid test puts it way below any other version!

c'mon, think of some more.

Pastor Larry · Oct 30, 2003

Originally posted by Michael Hobbs:
By the way, I'm still waiting on an apology.

For what?? Last I checked, I hadn't done anything to apologize for. Neither have I played dumb.

ScottEmerson · Oct 30, 2003

6. the Flesch-Kincaid test puts it way below any other version!

Interestingly enough, the Flesch-Kincaid doesn't take into account archaic words or the grade level of the words used. The formula is:

0.39 x Average No. of words in sentences + 11.8 x Average No. of syllables per word - 15.59

Chapter and Verse

<img src =/6412.jpg>

New Member

New Member

Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

Active Member