Comparing & Contrasting KJV/MV/KJVO

I think the point of the different meanings in translations is when someone improperly assumes without evidence that one particular version is the right one, because it is in that version. Differences must be settled by what the Greek text says, not by the label on the spine of the particular version one is holding. It is entirely possible that the version with the "wrong meaning" could be the version that is almost 400 years old, dating to a time when the mass of evidence was much smaller and when the knowledge and research of the language was much less complete. Age of a version does not insure accuracy and that must constantly be kept in mind. The standard of comparison must be the totality of the evidence.

Furthermore, these "differences" do not affect the doctrine of the version and therefore do not call into question the doctrines of the faith.

 

Dear rl,

You said...

This is the MV supporter argument, you have come full circle.

I hope you don't get riled and leave as most of the other KJVO, I/we know that you are a brother in the Lord. We need to honestly ackowledge our differences without emotion and then get back to discussing what the Word says even if your/my translation is "translated differently" but not "translated incorrectly" (or may be it is and needs to be discussed).

Actually as you know I am TRO so the "translation" part doesn't apply

Your Bro HankD

 

Great.

HankD

 

Larry,

"Things different are not the same" is sometimes wrongly applied to things that are the same, but not always, even if some might see things differently, and sometimes it is assumed another has not looked at evidence if they don’t post various sources. Then there is the problem that we do not agree on what the evidence means. I have a problem with going to the Greek to settle the matter, for that does not settle the matter, if there is not an agreed upon final authority, for the English versions are often "truly" different because the Greek sources used are truly different and some of us honestly understand the evidence differently.

Myself, I wonder if we have to agree on these things. Sometimes the debates rage as if it were needful for agreement. It bothers me to see some teaching others what I believe is not true, however. If I did not care about such things, if I were unconcerned about seeing people believe things I thought were not true, I would have no reason to be part of missions, or publishing the word of God, or being doctrinal in my writing. I can’t be all places at all times and answer all men at all times. But going beyond that, must we agree, will truth be made void because some do not agree? I trow not (Rom 3:3).

If what is being said is the same, and not truly different, then it is the same. The controversy is I know there are differences, and effort to convince me they are not differences or that the differences are not significant don’t shake me. I’ve seen some that seem to just forget there are differences as soon as the word “Greek” is tossed into the conversation there thinking the matter is too high or difficult. But the Greek does not settle everything. I can’t answer everyone, and if any of us are to be converted regarding these matters, in a sense I do not want to be the one that converts them so it is said they are “my” converts (1 Cor 12:7).

Without an agreed upon standard, there is no place for agreement on these matters. If one says "yes" is correct, and another source at the same place says "no" then there is difference and in that place it must be accepted there is no place for agreement if two different standards are being appealed to.

Not intending to poke Hank, for others say the same thing, it revolves in circles, with some always ready to say they have chased off and soundly ruined the position of the other. Such claims are hurled from all camps. Often we have a higher opinion of ourselves than is warranted. Our time constraints and priorities are private to our lives, and assumptions about such things are vain.

Hank made a valid point, about getting back to seeing what the word actually has to say to us...

What has happened to, “Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes”? I do not mean that just as an invitation to argue what is different and what is the same, and nit-picking. I mean something that leads to hiding the word in our heart that we might not sin. I mean something that magnifies Christ, for the Book is about Him. Doctrinal teaching. In this regard, the multi-versions have helped people argue about the words apart from applying the words. Again, with that, fault might be found in all camps.

“Teach me thy statutes” has taken new meaning for many in my opinion, and not in a way that is profitable to us. Stressing the doing is replaced by arguing which version. Doctrinal teaching is replaced by a cult like adherence to versions, and that fault is in camps from different sides, cult-like fellowship, apart from Christian fellowship that is doctrinal based.

None of us have arrived at the same place at the same time regarding our growing in grace and in the knowledge of Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The marks where we stand against the wall are at all different places. There will be those things we disagree on, and what we could agree on has to be taken on a case by case basis, if that is a priority.

 

dear rl,

I realize now that I did not address your repsonse concerning "full circle".

In your first post you said ...

Then you said...

From these two statements I came to the conclusion (perhaps erroneously, and if so I apologize for the error on my part) that you were such a KJV-ist as to being one who objects to the phrase "the original Greek"

"come full circle" perhaps I used this cliche in the wrong manner but given my first conclusion from your two statements then to say that different translations could say the same thing and yet be worded differently seemed to me to be a complete turnaround.

Anyway you mentioned communications (whether in transmission or reception is not important) being faulty?

I think so.

HankD

 

There is a verse in which none of the translations catch the wonderful nuance of the words used.

First a little exercise in semantics:

I could say the same thing in two different ways:
Illustration…

The American pilots flew over the Iraqi tanks and fired their automatic weapons at them.

OR

The American pilots strafed the Iraqi tanks.

The little word strafed says all that the first set of words said. Some words are packed with more than a singular meaning. Such is the verse mentioned above, The shortest verse in the Bible

KJV John 11:35 Jesus wept.

People all around Jesus were "weeping" but the word used is "Klaio", a loud wail.

The word for "Jesus wept" is "Dakruo" This word has the full meaning of silently weeping with tears rolling down the cheeks.

A single word packed with a large scope of meaning.

How important is it for us to know this, well quite a bit I think.

For here we see His divine dignity blended with His sinless humanity.
Our high priest touched with compassion.

His silent weeping, contrasted by the excesses of our flesh, having an emotional catharsis as if it was the absolute end of Lazarus.
Perhaps Jesus wept silently for both the suffering that His friend Lazarus had to endure in his death and the misunderstanding of the Person and character of His Father of the others around Him wailing as if there were no hope.

None of the English translations catch this insight of His personality because there is no single English cross-over word.

Doesn't He deserve to be glorified as in the original writings in the original language?

HankD

 

Hi,

Do you want my opinion? I'd call myself KJVO, becuase I believe that the AV is without error. Here is my position:

Well, I don't. I believe they were guided by the Holy Ghost to chose the correct words in translation. That's not the same - I believe the SCRIPTURE is inspired; not people.

No, I believe that all versions CONTAIN the word of God. But I believe the word of God is perfect, just as God is perfect. So, that means the MVs are a mix of a vast amount of the word of God, plus some error.

I think they might be useful for finding nuances, of for use in translations.

All scriputre is inspired (2 Tim 3:16). Therefore if the AV is scripture, it is inspired.

Yes, but with reference to the Greek and Hebrew texts the AV was translated from, and also with reference to translations into other languages (e.g. the European Reformation Bibles).

They seem real enough to me. I don't know how to explain them adequately, except for two possibilities: God worked inspite of these, and the AV was perfected some time later than 1611. Or that even with the errors, there was nothing that was untrue printed, so (at least some of them) were still absolutely innerrant.

I hardly look at any at all.

If I did this, I'd have no fellowship with anyone! Perhaps I'm a heathen, but I fellowship mostly with Anglicans, Presbyterians and charismatics (most of my friends and some of the most Godly Christians I know fall into this catagory. None of them, I don't think, believes there are absolutely no errors in the AV).

Amen!

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Mine also.

HankD