"Christendom....we have a problem"

[canadyjd]

Note: When I said, that “I have heard that same story before”, what I was getting at, was the strong possibility, that this whole story(of what was going on in the minds of the translators), may have be concocted. Because this “story”, puts a bad light on the KJV.

****edited**** to avoid further embarrassment of myself.

So what is more important: Being “genuine Christian scholars” or “know Greek and Hebrew”?

You are giving false choices. You can be a genuine Christian scholar and not know a single word of biblical Greek or biblical Hebrew. You can be a non-Christian and an expert on ancient languages, including Biblical Greek and Biblical Hebrew.

Don't you realize that Jewish scholars (not Christians) are often experts on biblical Hebrew? Where in the world do you think our current "Old Testament" came from? It came from Jewish scholars preserving their only Testament.

You didn't even address the information concerning the name "Jehovah". Why not?

You have stated other versions lack the power of God. Are you saying that someone cannot be saved unless the preacher uses a KJV of the bible?

peace to youraying:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

That is an historic fact that is easliy varified. Before that time, the English word we now use: "baptize", did not exist. That is an historic fact. The KJ translators came to the Greek word "baptizo" and instead of translating it "word for word" (as you have stated they did), they invented a new English word "baptize". I

I am not sure this is correct. I have seen references to the word baptize from as early as the late 13th century.

 

[Pastor Larry]

These who translated the King James, believed that the words were important, therefore they translated the original languages into English, word for word(as close as it could be).

No, not really. There are numerous places in the KJV where they abandoned "word for word" translation to translate ideas.

But the philosophy behind "every other English translation", is that "words aren't important, but the ideas are;" This is why they feel free to change the words, any way they choose.

Again, no not really. The NASB is far and away the most word for word translation available widely today. It puts the KJV to shame by its literalness (for better or worse ... and it is both at places).

(Like has be said for years, "If you change the words you change the meaning!")

I have never heard this said, much less for years. It's not even true at that. The KJV itself was an intentional changing of the words from Greek words to English words.

But something else has happened. When the words are changed, the power of the words is taken away.

The bigger problem is the worldliness and weak teaching of the church, not the translation a church uses.

 

[canadyjd]

I am not sure this is correct. I have seen references to the word baptize from as early as the late 13th century.

I stand corrected and apologize.

I researched a little and found that Tertellian (about A.D. 200 or so) introduced "baptimum" (sp?) as a latinized version of the Greek "baptizmo", which was picked up by various other languages including French and English.

There appears to be some use in poems and other English literature prior to the KJV.

The word was not "invented" by the KJV translators. When they came to the Greek word, they used a word already associated with Christian baptism.

Whether it was associated with immersion, or whether they realized that it really meant immersion, I cannot say.

Thank you CK4

peace to youraying:

 

[tinytim]

Hi again tinytim


Just a quick note.......

I hope, this being a quick note, that you are working on what I mentioned before... Can you give me the reason the KJV translators chose to use the Masoretic text when Jesus and his apostles used the LXX?

The reason that I am still “a staunch KJVO” man, is because I trust it.

Good for you.. I trust it too... And I wouldn't want someone using something they don't trust...
You see, I don't have a problem with people using the KJV, or even being KJVO.. my MIL is.. and we get along great....
It is what I use to preach and teach out of...
And until you trust another version, (If you ever do) you should stick with the KJV... You will never go wrong with the KJV.

If you have found “a single English translation of the Bible” that you trust, please let me know which one it is.

Because I have studied this issue for many yrs now, I have came to trust many versions...
For instance... I carry a Parallel Bible with 1873 KJV, NIV, NLT, NASB.

I don't trust versions that were translated by one person... like the Message, (even though I do read it, I double check the others against it)
Or
Versions that were made to further a cult's doctrine... like the Jehovah Witnesses Version... uh... NWT, isn't it?

But if you are now using two or more Bibles, than I believe that you made a mistake, when you left the KJV.

How so? I am following the example of Jesus and the Apostles that used more than one version...
I am following the advice of the KJV translators, that said it was good to use other versions...
I am not following the tradition of the RCC that burned people at the stake for not using their Authorized Version...
I am not following the tradition of the Samaritans that taught that only their copy of the Pentetuech was holy...

BTW, which KJV do you use?
I use either the 1769 or the 1873...

(Actually I like the 1873 better because it put back the sidenotes of the 1611 that the 1769 took out... it also put back the changes the 1769 made)

I am anxious to hear from you.

As I am you.

 

[tinytim]

Stilllearning, have you checked out the NET Bible?...

I like it for the translator's notes...
I am sure you have studied the problem passages, and the NET Bible gives the reasons passages are translated a certaing way in it's translator's notes....

I got one on ebay for like $20 it was a steal!

but you can download it for free...
Here... http://bible.org/page.php?page_id=3086

And no, I am not suggesting you replace your KJV with the NET... but I am suggesting you use it to research this topic more, since you are "Still learning" (couldn't resist... I love your screenname!)

If I had to choose one version to be stranded with on a desserted Island it would be the NET...
Simply because it explains why it was translated the way it was.

 

[dh1948]

My Take...

I didn't take the time to read the entire thread after it took a turn toward a "KJVO" discussion. I really get tired of hearing it. I respect the opinions of those who are King James only, but what more can be said than has already be said? The thread started out talking about what is wrong with Christians. At the risk of being redundant, I will toss in my two-cent's worth....

The problem is not the modern methods we use today. (If I recall correctly, the method of flannel graphs was once a "modern method.") The problem is a heart problem. As a pastor, I cannot change people's hearts. I can set a nourishing table and invite people to eat. That's all. Week after week people come to my church and yours...good people, saved people...and have been doing so for decades. In spite of all the doctrine, fellowship, prayer, Sunday School classes, discipleship training, etc., they are still the same as they have always been....unchanged. Why is that?

Maybe there are many answers...busyness, misplaced priorities, financial pressures in the home, demands of the job...you can add your own list. All of these are merely symptoms of the real problem....the heart of the problem is a problem of the heart. All of the above mentioned stresses have a way of deadening the spiritual sensitivity of the human heart.

If I as a pastor took responsibility for the spiritual receptivity of my people I would be most miserable and prone to quit. After 34 years in the pastorate, I have learned that I cannot change the heart of anyone. Only God can. Before God will, He must have a willing heart with which to work.

If we pastors are due a finger-pointing at all, it may be in the area of helping our people to understand how to apply the Scriptures to their everyday lives. To me, that is more important than stirring the muddy waters of the KJO debate.

 

[tinytim]

I didn't take the time to read the entire thread after it took a turn toward a "KJVO" discussion. I really get tired of hearing it. I respect the opinions of those who are King James only, but what more can be said than has already be said? The thread started out talking about what is wrong with Christians. At the risk of being redundant, I will toss in my two-cent's worth....

The problem is not the modern methods we use today. (If I recall correctly, the method of flannel graphs was once a "modern method.") The problem is a heart problem. As a pastor, I cannot change people's hearts. I can set a nourishing table and invite people to eat. That's all. Week after week people come to my church and yours...good people, saved people...and have been doing so for decades. In spite of all the doctrine, fellowship, prayer, Sunday School classes, discipleship training, etc., they are still the same as they have always been....unchanged. Why is that?

Maybe there are many answers...busyness, misplaced priorities, financial pressures in the home, demands of the job...you can add your own list. All of these are merely symptoms of the real problem....the heart of the problem is a problem of the heart. All of the above mentioned stresses have a way of deadening the spiritual sensitivity of the human heart.

If I as a pastor took responsibility for the spiritual receptivity of my people I would be most miserable and prone to quit. After 34 years in the pastorate, I have learned that I cannot change the heart of anyone. Only God can. Before God will, He must have a willing heart with which to work.

If we pastors are due a finger-pointing at all, it may be in the area of helping our people to understand how to apply the Scriptures to their everyday lives. To me, that is more important than stirring the muddy waters of the KJO debate.

My sentiments exactly...
I have had people ask me, "Why can't you get so-n-so in church?"
My response, "I am not the Holy Spirit."

We can only do what God instructs us to do...
People have to be willing...
Look at Lot and his family to see what happens when someone drags someone else out of sin....

People must want their hearts changed... and until they see the need for that, it will never happen.
And for the Calvinists among us.. the people still must want their hearts changed... but the Calvinist view says that God puts that want-to in their hearts...

You see, it is still all up to God... whether you are a C or an A.
Whether you are a KJVO or not...
Whether you use Powerpoint or not...
Whether you use Praise and Worship or not...

It is all about having the right heart before God.

 

[Tom Butler]

No Tom, the message of the Gospel, is NEVER POWERLESS, because it’s God’s Message. This is why a woman preacher, can see converts. Because even though she is in disobedience, and the Holy Spirit is nowhere to be found, if she is preaching God’s Gospel, it has to power to save souls.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs too much, and maybe we're agreeing generally. Let me clarify. Yes, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. But there are those who hear who ignore it, even are willing to kill the one who brings it. To them, it has no power, except to stir them to hate the Lord Jesus and his people.

Three thoussand people who heard the gospel on the day of Pentecost were convicted by it. The Jewish leadership opposed it.

I believe that when the gospel has power is when the Holy Spirit empowers both it and the one who preaches it, and stirs the heart and mind of one who hears it

That's why when we quote Romans 1:16, let's quote all of it. "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first, and also the Greek."

Whatever power the gospel has, Paul makes it clear that it is God's power. It brings people to repentance and faith.

And this verse also explains why the gospel has no power over some people; they are unbelievers.

It also explains why we believers love the gospel so intensely. We recognize that it was one of God's instruments in our salvation.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Matthew 7:24-27 (quoted above in post #27, version & edition not specified, this was quoted as being a "solid rock", but no hints were given about where one might find the Bible with these words in them)

V.24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
V.25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
V.26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
V.27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Matthew 7:24-27 (King James Version [KJV], 1611 Edition):

Therefore, whosoeuer heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I wil liken him vnto a wise man, which built his house vpon a rocke:
25 And the raine descended, and the floods came, and the windes blew, and beat vpon that house: and it fell not, for it was founded vpon a rocke.
26 And euery one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall bee likened vnto a foolish man, which built his house vpon the sand:
27 And the raine descended, and the floods came, and the windes blew, and beat vpon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.

Children's worship song:
The foolish man built his house upon the sand
The foolish man built his house upon the sand
The foolish man built his house upon the sand
And the walls came tumbling down
(make hand motions of house falling down)

Matthew 7:24-27 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ):
"Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them will be like a sensible man who built his house on the rock.
25 The rain fell, the rivers rose, and the winds blew and pounded that house. Yet it didn't collapse, because its foundation was on the rock.
26 But everyone who hears these words of Mine and doesn't act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
27 The rain fell, the rivers rose, the winds blew and pounded that house, and it collapsed. And its collapse was great!"

Stilllearning: //From your response, I think that what you are saying is that “no book is special”, because no book can contain “the living Word of God”.//

Yes, you did miss part of what I said. What I was trying to say is that there are many Bibles (100s in English) that individually and jointly contain the "Written Word of God". I don't understand how anybody can limit God to one and only one book.

Stilllearning: //I have been saved for about twenty seven years now, and for almost that entire time, “I” have had a solid rock, that I have built my life on. And this rock isn’t Jesus.
(Although Jesus is “The Rock”, that was cut out, without hands
No, my solid rock, has been God’s Word.//

Amen, Stilllearning! For 27 of the 58 years I was saved, my solid rock was God's Word: The NIV = New International Version. I used that Bible, God's Holy Written Word, to help win some 180 souls to the Lord. For the churches to which I have belonged have chosen me to be a counselor of those coming forth at the altar call (also called 'alter call' if they change as a result of salvation ) So my testimony is that JESUS SAVES WHEN I USE THE NIV.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi pinoybaptist

Nice to hear from you.

Do you know, that I have never heard anybody say, that they believed that preaching only belongs in Church. If you have some Scripture to support that, I would like to see it.
--------------------------------------------------
Now, for your next statement.......

“As for the KJV, it's a good translation. But that's all it is. A good translation. I prefer it over all other translations. If I bought a new Bible, I ask for the KJV translation. I feel comfortable with it.”

I agree 100% with that statement.
--------------------------------------------------
But for your next statement.......

“I stop reading(the KJV), when the guy up in the pulpit is using a different translation.”

Personally, I would start looking for another Church.
--------------------------------------------------
But I was confused with your next statement.......

“But it sure ain't no "superior-over-other" translation.
Get over it (no sarcasm intended).
Try reading other translations and see for yourself.”

The reason that I am confused, is because you ether believe the KJV to be God’s Word, or you don’t? -If you believe it to be God’s Word, why don’t you think that it is “better”, than other translations?”
--------------------------------------------------


Oh, and by the way, I don’t think that I am going to “get over it”!
-But that’s okey!-


Hope to hear from you again

 

[stilllearning]

Hi rbell

You said......

“Let me also say that I appreciate your polite approach, stillearning. Though we disagree, I appreciate how respectful you've been.”


Well, I give the Lord, all the Glory and credit, but thank you anyway.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi again canadyjd

As for my comment........

“So what is more important: Being “genuine Christian scholars” or “know Greek and Hebrew”?

This statement, wasn’t pointed at all, toward any scholar who lived more than 150 years ago. It is mainly pointed at today’s scholars, who change the English words in their new translations.

The reason that I doubt that they are “genuine Christian scholars”, is because I can’t imagine a “genuine Christian”, removing or changing words in the Bible, in order to, water down the Lord’s Deity, etc.

Of course I don’t know what is in their hearts and these changes, might just simply be innocent mistakes. But this was the source of my question.
--------------------------------------------------
As for why......

“I didn't even address the information concerning the name "Jehovah". Why not?

It was because I am ignorant. That was Greek to me. I couldn’t give my opinion, because I didn’t understand it. But maybe one of these days I will.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you asked.......

“You have stated other versions lack the power of God. Are you saying that someone cannot be saved unless the preacher uses a KJV of the bible?”

Good question.

No. No one needs, the KJV, in order to get saved.


Hope to hear from you again.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Pastor Larry

I appreciate your comments:

As my nickname implies, I am still learning.

And I am simply loving, all of these responses, that I am getting to my post.
--------------------------------------------------
As for your statement.......

“There are numerous places in the KJV where they abandoned "word for word" translation to translate ideas.”

This fascinates me; Could you please give me some examples?
i.e. (Scripture references

Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------
As for your statement about the NASB.......

“The NASB is far and away the most word for word translation available widely today. It puts the KJV to shame by its literalness (for better or worse ... and it is both at places).”

Would you happen to know, the sources(manuscripts), the people used, who put the NASB together? -I would like to know that also.-
--------------------------------------------------
As for my statement..........

“(Like has be said for years, "If you change the words you change the meaning!")

What I am talking about, for example, is how the JW’s, added the word “a”, to John 1:1. This change of the wording in this verse, certainly changes the meaning of this verse.

Now although this is a blatant example, it is what I am talking about. “If words are changed or removed, then the meaning is changed”.

-Don’t you agree with that!-
--------------------------------------------------
And for my statement......

“But something else has happened. When the words are changed, the power of the words is taken away.”

Like the previous example.....

John 1:1
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

No this is a powerful verse of Scripture. Because(if read in context), it nails down, the deity Christ.

Now if anybody goes messing around with these words, “they are robbing this verse of it’s power”.
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry, that I didn’t make myself more clear before, but I am still learning.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi again tinytim

I thought that I had already answered this question; But maybe you missed it.

Your question was.......
“Can you give me the reason the KJV translators chose to use the Masoretic text when Jesus and his apostles used the LXX?”

My answer was.....
“Because the Masoretic text, was a better translation of the Old Testament, than the LXX.”
--------------------------------------------------
Now your follow up question was.......

“Why then did Jesus and some of the apostles, quote from the LXX.”

And my answer was......
“The LXX(Greek Septuagint), was a Greek translation of the Old Testament, and 2000 years ago, Greek was the language of Rome, and Rome was spreading it’s influence throughout the known world. Therefore, it would have been advantageous for the people who lived then, to learn to speak and read Greek. Therefore a lot of people back then, used the LXX.

Now because the LXX was being used by so many people, I suppose, that the Lord and the apostles quoted from it, because it was familiar to people.


Hope this answers your question.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Tom Butler

I believe that you are right. You and I are on the same page.

The one good thing, that can come about: When you have two men, who agree on the major things, but are splitting hairs, on some minor disagreements, is that it sharpens both of them up.

Proverbs 27:17
"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."


Thank you for participating.

 

[Pastor Larry]

“There are numerous places in the KJV where they abandoned "word for word" translation to translate ideas.”

This fascinates me; Could you please give me some examples?
i.e. (Scripture references)

Roman 6:2 and Matthew 27:44 among others.

As for your statement about the NASB.......

“The NASB is far and away the most word for word translation available widely today. It puts the KJV to shame by its literalness (for better or worse ... and it is both at places).”

Would you happen to know, the sources(manuscripts), the people used, who put the NASB together? -I would like to know that also.-

The NASB was translated by using all the manuscripts that God has preserved for us, rather than simply using some of them.

As for my statement..........

“(Like has be said for years, "If you change the words you change the meaning!")

What I am talking about, for example, is how the JW’s, added the word “a”, to John 1:1. This change of the wording in this verse, certainly changes the meaning of this verse.

Now although this is a blatant example, it is what I am talking about. “If words are changed or removed, then the meaning is changed”.

-Don’t you agree with that!-

On JOhn 1:1, sure. But that's a little bit of a different issue don't you think? It is one thing to mistranslate (as they did there). It is a different thing to properly translate using different words. And that is what we are talking about. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of more than one language knows that it is possible to correctly translate a given sentence using more than one set of words.

 

[rbell]

As for my statement..........

“(Like has be said for years, "If you change the words you change the meaning!")

What I am talking about, for example, is how the JW’s, added the word “a”, to John 1:1. This change of the wording in this verse, certainly changes the meaning of this verse.

Now although this is a blatant example, it is what I am talking about. “If words are changed or removed, then the meaning is changed”.

-Don’t you agree with that!-


“But something else has happened. When the words are changed, the power of the words is taken away.”

Like the previous example.....

John 1:1
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

No this is a powerful verse of Scripture. Because(if read in context), it nails down, the deity Christ.

Now if anybody goes messing around with these words, “they are robbing this verse of it’s power”.

First of all, comparing a modern translation with the JW's butchering of Christology isn't a fair comparison. One is heresy, the other isn't.

Secondly...as Pastor Larry said,

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of more than one language knows that it is possible to correctly translate a given sentence using more than one set of words.

Translation is changing words...from one tongue to another. And modern versions do the same thing...changing one tongue (early 17th-century Western European English) to another (21st-century American English). Now, it should be accurate, no doubt...But if you don't change the words, you haven't translated anything, and we all should read the NT in Greek and the OT in Hebrew/Aramaic.

I appreciate your preferences, but once again...your position does not have a Scriptural basis (e.g., there is no Scriptural mandate for "one translation only is allowed for each language").

 

[tinytim]

Hi again tinytim

I thought that I had already answered this question; But maybe you missed it.

Your question was.......
“Can you give me the reason the KJV translators chose to use the Masoretic text when Jesus and his apostles used the LXX?”

My answer was.....
“Because the Masoretic text, was a better translation of the Old Testament, than the LXX.”
--------------------------------------------------
Now your follow up question was.......

“Why then did Jesus and some of the apostles, quote from the LXX.”

And my answer was......
“The LXX(Greek Septuagint), was a Greek translation of the Old Testament, and 2000 years ago, Greek was the language of Rome, and Rome was spreading it’s influence throughout the known world. Therefore, it would have been advantageous for the people who lived then, to learn to speak and read Greek. Therefore a lot of people back then, used the LXX.

Now because the LXX was being used by so many people, I suppose, that the Lord and the apostles quoted from it, because it was familiar to people.


Hope this answers your question.

Yes it did...
If I am following your logic it would stand to reason that it was OK to use the LXX because it was a translation of the Masoretic text, the same way the KJV is a translation of the masoretic text... (OT)

Thank you for your answer.

Question for everyone: Does Modern versions use the Masoretic text for the underlying text in the Old Testament?
I will deal with the NT later...

 

[tinytim]

The reason that I am confused, is because you ether believe the KJV to be God’s Word, or you don’t? -If you believe it to be God’s Word, why don’t you think that it is “better”, than other translations?”

I know this was asked of Pinoy, but I would like to give my take on it...

I don't feel the KJV is superior to, say, the NIV.... They are equal...
They are both a translation of Scripture, The Bible, God's Word, into English.

Since they are Equal, IMO, neither is superior over the other one.