Conservative Bible Project

[preachinjesus]

I am beggining to feel scriptual text basis should be argued more than anything. The majority/TR is very hard to argue against. Maybe I am turning into an uneducated/narrow minded individual that leans towards TR/maj text?

Well if we had everyone in our churches learn Greek and Hebrew than we could argue that the originals are the way to go. Frankly, this is why pastors need to be well educated in the languages...so they adequately handle the responsibility of informing their flocks.

That said, I don't particularly believe the TR is an example of the textual basis we should use. I'm more for a textual basis informed by modern scholarship than one man's input from several hundred years ago. While I appreciate the intent of the TR, it simply isn't adequate for true engagement with the textual basis of the testaments.

 

[Johnv]

And just how should we all apply this to modern versionology?

The verse in question isn't referring to the issue of translations. It's addressing the importance of preaching what Christ has instructed (In the original Greek, "kerusso logos"), in part to combat false teachings that were permeating the church in which Timothy was working.

 

[gb93433]

The majority/TR is very hard to argue against. Maybe I am turning into an uneducated/narrow minded individual that leans towards TR/maj text?

A Rolls Royce is better than a Chevy? To be a non-Christian is better than being a Christian? Getting a B or C in a class is better than an A? More means better?

 

[THEOLDMAN]

Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly, is initiating a new Bible translation:

http://news.aol.com/article/bible-too-liberal-conservatives-say-yes/706054

Enough already!

The whole Schlafly family seems like a bunch of nuts !!!!

 

[Harold Garvey]

Well we can look at this attempt at a translation and say it doesn't come close to meeting the requirements of acceptable work. If for no other reason it fails to engage in realistic and honest interpretation. Most modern versions don't fail at this. And in actuality most modern version are more faithful to understanding and engaging with the historical text than some more established translations.

No, a "heap" carries with it the idea of placing this accumulation into order, which accumulating is synonomous but doesn't carry the same implication by action.

Dust accumulates, people heap up.

There again the KJV is worthy of note, or should we say "noteworthy"?:thumbsup:

 

[Harold Garvey]

The verse in question isn't referring to the issue of translations. It's addressing the importance of preaching what Christ has instructed (In the original Greek, "kerusso logos"), in part to combat false teachings that were permeating the church in which Timothy was working.

Are you saying the passage doesn't teach us anything?

Do we all need to know Greek now?

Didn't you first understand English before you knew Greek?

Don't you try to tell us in English what the Greek means?:sleep:

I understood what you said before any knowledge of Greek, but I also understood the warning to us in present day apostacies that people heap to themsleves teahcers having itching ears because they have decided to bring the word of God down to an intellectual understanding rather than being led by the Spirit.:type::type:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Well if we had everyone in our churches learn Greek and Hebrew than we could argue that the originals are the way to go. Frankly, this is why pastors need to be well educated in the languages...so they adequately handle the responsibility of informing their flocks.

That said, I don't particularly believe the TR is an example of the textual basis we should use. I'm more for a textual basis informed by modern scholarship than one man's input from several hundred years ago. While I appreciate the intent of the TR, it simply isn't adequate for true engagement with the textual basis of the testaments.

The textual basis for translations is why we stay with the family of texts which make up the KJV like we do.

 

[Johnv]

Are you saying the passage doesn't teach us anything?

I'm saying the passage in question isn't referring to the issue of translations.

Do we all need to know Greek now?

Given your frequent misapplication of the English, yes, would probably help you to have an understanding of Koine Greek.

Didn't you first understand English before you knew Greek? Don't you try to tell us in English what the Greek means?

That has nothing to do with the fact that the passage in question isn't referring to the issue of translations.

I understood what you said before any knowledge of Greek, but I also understood the warning to us in present day apostacies that people heap to themsleves teahcers having itching ears because they have decided to bring the word of God down to an intellectual understanding rather than being led by the Spirit.:type::type:

Yet another example of the single-translation-onlyist double-standard mentality.

The textual basis for translations is why we stay with the family of texts which make up the KJV like we do.

But that's a false statement on your part. You don't stick with the TR family of texts. You acknlowlege that you stick with the KJV and condemn any other translation, even if it's based on the same source texts. You further claim that, if the KJV makes a modification from the TR, it's permissible, but if any other translation makes a modification from its source texts, even if the source texts are the TR, then it's not permissible. I'd like to see you deny that.

 

[Johnv]

(double post)

 

[Harold Garvey]

I'm saying the passage in question isn't referring to the issue of translations.

yet it is in the translation:smilewinkgrin:

Given your frequent misapplication of the English, yes, would probably help you to have an understanding of Koine Greek.

Don't need to understand your version of W/H's Greek, it's as corrupt as they were.

That has nothing to do with the fact that the passage in question isn't referring to the issue of translations.

Then you're not able to translate with any accuracy is what you meant to say.

Yet another example of the single-translation-onlyist double-standard mentality.

Oh? So I hold to a version that upholds God's word above the words of men and you complain that it's a double-standard!:tonofbricks:

But that's a false statement on your part. You don't stick with the TR family of texts. You acknlowlege that you stick with the KJV and condemn any other translation, even if it's based on the same source texts. You further claim that, if the KJV makes a modification from the TR, it's permissible, but if any other translation makes a modification from its source texts, even if the source texts are the TR, then it's not permissible. I'd like to see you deny that.

there are many things "based" upon the same thing with different results, time you learned that and maybe, just maybe you'll have learned the KJV is above man's words.

You must be a TR onlyist

 

[Johnv]

yet it is in the translation...
Then you're not able to translate with any accuracy is what you meant to say.

Do you honestly think you're not sounding like a fool when you say stuff like that?

Don't need to understand your version of W/H's Greek, it's as corrupt as they were.

Which doesn't change the fact that your frequent misapplication of the English is well documented in your posts.

Oh? So I hold to a version that upholds God's word above the words of men and you complain that it's a double-standard!

What evidentiary support do you have for that claim?

just maybe you'll have learned the KJV is above man's words.

Sure. Please provide scriptural support. In all your posts on this baord, you've never once been able to provide scriptural support for KJVOism. I do love they way you turn every topic into a KJVO topic. Yet you can never support your KJVO claim. Gotta love it.

 

[gb93433]

Don't need to understand your version of W/H's Greek, it's as corrupt as they were.

I do not know of anyone who uses the Westcott Hort Greek text exclusively today. What is the source of your information for such a statement about Westcott and Hort?

So I hold to a version that upholds God's word above the words of men and you complain that it's a double-standard!

Prove your statement as fact by showing how you have the original text.

there are many things "based" upon the same thing with different results, time you learned that and maybe, just maybe you'll have learned the KJV is above man's words.

Could you explain?

 

[annsni]

I do not know of anyone who uses the Westcott Hort Greek text exclusively today. What is the source of your information for such a statement about Westcott and Hort?

Most likely the word of a man.

 

[rsr]

Most likely the word of a man.

Or a woman ...

 

[gb93433]

Most likely the word of a man.

Did that man have integrity?

 

[Harold Garvey]

If you people want a version that is dragged down to man's common language, whichever is "common" as the English is everchanging and adversely effected by perverted individuals, then go right ahead.

The KJV was written in a "high" form of English to uphold its integrity and give due reverence to the Lord in so doing.

You expect lost men to be able to intellectually grasp the spiritual things found within the word of God. It's really no wonder you demean the Bible by attempting to "prove" no translation is inpsired.

Let the truth expose what the underlayment is of your methodology: you don't want men to have an inspired Bible!:tear:

 

[annsni]

If you people want a version that is dragged down to man's common language, whichever is "common" as the English is everchanging and adversely effected by perverted individuals, then go right ahead.

The KJV was written in a "high" form of English to uphold its integrity and give due reverence to the Lord in so doing.

You expect lost men to be able to intellectually grasp the spiritual things found within the word of God. It's really no wonder you demean the Bible by attempting to "prove" no translation is inpsired.

Let the truth expose what the underlayment is of your methodology: you don't want men to have an inspired Bible!:tear:

ROTFL - Did you know that the KJV translators themselves spoke of the importance of a Scripture in the "vulgar" or common language?? No need to dumb down the Scriptures but no need to make it obsolete. There are words in the KJV that do not mean today what they meant back then. "Study" is one of them. So instead of making things confusing or hidden, it's good to update the language so that the clear meaning of Scripture is given.

As for your last comment, that's a bunch of balogna. It's too bad you stand on a version rather than God.

 

[Johnv]

If you people want a version that is dragged down to man's common language, whichever is "common" as the English is everchanging and adversely effected by perverted individuals, then go right ahead.

The NT was written in common Greek, because that's what the common people spoke. That in and of itself is adequate support for contemporary English speakers to have a bible written in Contemporary English.

The KJV was written in a "high" form of English to uphold its integrity and give due reverence to the Lord in so doing.

You obviously have no knowlege of the language of the KJV. First, the KJV was written in a combination of Early Modern English (spoken and Middle English. Second, there is nothing about this ME/EME combination that can be said to uphold the integrity of words any more or less than Modern English or Contemporary Business English (the two forms which followed).

You expect lost men to be able to intellectually grasp the spiritual things found within the word of God. It's really no wonder you demean the Bible by attempting to "prove" no translation is inpsired.

Still waiting for you to provide scriptural support for the idea that only the KJV is inspired. But you actually expect lost men to read a bible in a language other than the one they speak.

Let the truth expose what the underlayment is of your methodology: you don't want men to have an inspired Bible!:tear:

Actually, it is you who doesn't want an inspired bible other than the KJV, but you can't find any proof to support your claim.

 

[Harold Garvey]

The NT was written in common Greek, because that's what the common people spoke. That in and of itself is adequate support for contemporary English speakers to have a bible written in Contemporary English.

Greek is not English, it is a primodial tongue. English is the compilation of many tongues. they are not comparable as you'd like to make them.

Contemporary English is less than the high English in which the KJV is written, therefore you expect less and you get less.

Demanding literary excellence to fit anything less as contemporary English is embarking upon the voyage of failure.

You obviously have no knowlege of the language of the KJV. First, the KJV was written in a combination of Early Modern English (spoken and Middle English. Second, there is nothing about this ME/EME combination that can be said to uphold the integrity of words any more or less than Modern English or Contemporary Business English (the two forms which followed).

I expected as much from a self-appointed scholar and i got it.

Still waiting for you to provide scriptural support for the idea that only the KJV is inspired. But you actually expect lost men to read a bible in a language other than the one they speak.

No, I expect men to rely upon the Holy Spirit to lead them to a place of repentence and convert them so they can understand the Bible. YOU expect the Bible to be understood on the level of intellect and therefore DENY the prompting of the Spirit.

God over-rules your idyllic, ecumenical and humanistic reasonings.

Actually, it is you who doesn't want an inspired bible other than the KJV, but you can't find any proof to support your claim.

The KJV is just better than the rest.

I'll stick with the KJV.:godisgood:

 

[Johnv]

The KJV is just better than the rest.

That's the only scriptural support for KJVOism?

BTW, you might want to check your spelling of "primordial" before espousing superiority of the English language.