-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I'm not sure what you are complaining about or who but I used the quote function on your page 2 post. I don't have time to address all of the issues at once so I took them one at a time... and still owe you several answers. If that method is not satisfactory to you then I can only say that I am sorry it bothers you.
OK. If you prefer. But these are not the same words you used before. I guess to you that would mean that what you wrote this time was a dangerous "perversion" of what you wrote before. To me, since they mean the same thing, I have no problem accepting both as your "word".
This is kind of interesting. In the NT there is only one occasion where the KJV uses "repent" and the NKJV uses "relent". It is an OT quote that refers to a change of direction on the part of God from the perspective of man. In every case where "repent" was applied to man in the KJV it was used in the NKJV as well.
In fact, all of the OT examples I found were on this same order. Rightly or wrongly, it appears that the NKJV translators decided that in the context of God's changing the direction of His actions, it is not proper to say that God "repents".
This application of the word "repent" to the actions of God by the KJV creates a conflict in scripture. We are told that God does not repent and that there is no shadow of turning with Him. Yet, the KJV frequently says that God repented.
Of course this can correctly be explained but then again, wouldn't that be changing the Word of God? If the KJV says God "repents" isn't that what it means? If no other word than "repent" is acceptable as you suggest then the KJV presents a contradiction on the nature of God. If other words are acceptable then why would you condemn the NKJV for using them?
I agree completely. And anyone who will take verses concerning the preservation and inspiration of the Bible and reinterpret them to mean only the KJV should "repent".
Interesting choice of verses since the phrase "book of life" in verse 19 originated with the Latin Vulgate. That phrase stands against all the Greek and overwhelming evidence from other sources that says the verse should be "tree of life." So if your understanding of this issue is correct then Erasmus and the KJV translators and anyone who knows what I just posted is guilty of both taking away and adding. They would be subject to this curse.
Lord, please show us truth. If it is my opinion is wrong then please change my heart and mind. Bless those who oppose me with convincing words. If it is my opponents who are wrong, please give me the grace and wisdom to help them understand their error and the humility to reconcile with them without lording it over them. In the name of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, amen.
Dear Kman,
Grin. Can you believe it? I answered before you asked! Grin.
I forgot to also mention, that if one looks at the Greek, at least with what we have available, one would be hardpressed to find commas.
Notice how commas are also used to emphasis points.
I could translate this way:
Grace to you, and peace from God, our Father and Lord Jesus Christ.
Or I could translate:
Grace to you, and peace from Our God, Father and Lord Jesus Christ.
Or I could translate like the KJV did:
Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
But what if we changed the commas around...
Grace be to you, and peace, from God, our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
You see even with commas placed where we want them that inserted word "from" still separates the Father from Jesus as two, when in fact, it was merely an expression that the Father and Lord is Jesus (Savior) Isaiah 9:6 (The Everlasting Father), John 5:43, 10:25, John 12:45 (And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.) Read Isaiah 43:10-11.
You see what is missing when a word is added to emphasize a doctrine?
So, I say, was all that necessary? (The extreme apparent measure to change the translation into an interpretation to emphasize the trinity point, howbeit, unwittingly by trinitarian scholars who translated it.)
Grin. Can you believe it? I answered before you asked! Grin.
I forgot to also mention, that if one looks at the Greek, at least with what we have available, one would be hardpressed to find commas.
Notice how commas are also used to emphasis points.
I could translate this way:
Grace to you, and peace from God, our Father and Lord Jesus Christ.
Or I could translate:
Grace to you, and peace from Our God, Father and Lord Jesus Christ.
Or I could translate like the KJV did:
Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
But what if we changed the commas around...
Grace be to you, and peace, from God, our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
You see even with commas placed where we want them that inserted word "from" still separates the Father from Jesus as two, when in fact, it was merely an expression that the Father and Lord is Jesus (Savior) Isaiah 9:6 (The Everlasting Father), John 5:43, 10:25, John 12:45 (And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.) Read Isaiah 43:10-11.
You see what is missing when a word is added to emphasize a doctrine?
So, I say, was all that necessary? (The extreme apparent measure to change the translation into an interpretation to emphasize the trinity point, howbeit, unwittingly by trinitarian scholars who translated it.)
RaptureReady
New Member
Where. I just read Psalm 46 and didn't find Shakespeare in it at all. Seems to me like you are making stuff up again. Besides, of what possible concern is this? Who cares? This is the type of foolishness that is laughable in this discussion. Surely we have better things to talk about.
</font>[/QUOTE]I'm glad you asked. Follow me---} Using the King James Bible, go to Psalm 46 verse one. Count 46 words in. Now go to verse 11 and count backwards 46 words starting with "refuge." Put these two words together and you spell Shakespear. Isn't that great! If you thing that was just a fluke, ask me how old Shakespear was when he died. Come on, ask me.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
A point worth noting is that SHAKESPEARE used the Geneva Bible......
Dear Kman,
How does your question to me pertain to what folks have done with translation?
But for what it is worth, regarding the Trinity.
Because of my quest over the years to know what it meant, I truly have found radical views, illogical views, and views that I can accept regarding the Trinity.
If you studied the Trinity, you will find that there are many views, some very radical (three Gods in Heaven) to very tame (internal relationship), and as for me...
I have found that if it exalts Who Jesus is, was, and Who is to come, I am for it.
If it downplays or makes Jesus out to be less than HE is and was, and is to come, then I am against it.
Regardless of my view, why do you think it is okay for any scholar (even if it was from 1611 or any era) to rewrite the Bible just because they want to emphasize a point?
How does your question to me pertain to what folks have done with translation?
But for what it is worth, regarding the Trinity.
Because of my quest over the years to know what it meant, I truly have found radical views, illogical views, and views that I can accept regarding the Trinity.
If you studied the Trinity, you will find that there are many views, some very radical (three Gods in Heaven) to very tame (internal relationship), and as for me...
I have found that if it exalts Who Jesus is, was, and Who is to come, I am for it.
If it downplays or makes Jesus out to be less than HE is and was, and is to come, then I am against it.
Regardless of my view, why do you think it is okay for any scholar (even if it was from 1611 or any era) to rewrite the Bible just because they want to emphasize a point?
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Obviously, substance follows form in your world......
First of all, your opening statement has no basis in fact. NOBODY has stated that they are offended by the KJV. Simply making a statement does not render it accurate.
Secondly, God's Truth can be found in the Geneva Bible, and that point by itself shoots down your KJV-Onlyism. Since you are new to the list, I have to ask you if you are using the REAL Authorised Version, or the subjacent 1769 revision that is NOT the King James Version (Neither King James nor any of the translators were alive in 1769). As a matter of fact, the NKJV is superior to the 1769 Revision as it compares the manuscripts and demonstrates the differences in the marginal notes.
Lastly, you failed to prove your case that those who do not use the KJV are of the New Age Crowd. The Verses you cite neither support your argument, nor do they lend credence to your tangential comments. Moreover, none of your questions are pertinent to this discussion, or the point you failed to make.
I use the TRUE 1611 Authorised Version. I love the AV more than anybody on this list, and I dismiss KJV-Onlyism for what it truly is. You cannot justify KJV-Onlyism using God's Holy Word....even your beloved 1769 Revision. Nobody has done it thus far.
We do agree on the last sentence in your post.
Trying to figure out if your theological bias
is perhaps influencing your translation.
Heh heh..I never said it was ok..did I?
I'm no Greek scholar. I can read some..I don't really see what the trouble is. I think I'll stick with the NASB translation..seems to
accurately reflect the Greek in as far as
I know it.
Eph 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (nasb)
-kman
You are a pastor who denies that modern versions make one a fool. The Scripture said so.
Ok, let's see what modern versions say:
Daniel 3:25 (NIV) -- He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods ."
Daniel 3:25 (NASB) -- He said, "Look! I see four men loosed and (1) walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods! "
Daniel 3:25 (ESV) -- He answered and said, "But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods."
Daniel 3:25 (KJV) -- He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God .
Romans 1:25 (KJV) -- Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Who changed from "God" to "gods"? Did modern versions make anyone a fool?
One last word! Look at Genesis 3:5 (KJV) -- "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods , knowing good and evil.
Who said that word, "gods" on Genesis 3:5 comparing to Daniel 3:25?
Who produced these modern versions and changed from the word, "God" to "gods" on Daniel 3:25? Why did they change it in a lie?
You said, "You are under the mistaken assumption that these men are vital to the point. They are not. Their personal lives are irrelevant."
You said, "It is interesting that you include Prov 30:6." Me -- mistake? NO! Me -- a liar? NO! This shows very obvious that You contradict yourself with this verse -- Romans 1:25.
Pure and utter foolishness. Absolute nonsense. Unbelievable. A mockery of God's word.
Where?? The Scripture doesn't even address modern versions. Once again you are inserting your own ideas into Scripture. I reject that as a violation of the teaching of Scripture itself. "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
Nebuchadnezzar was not a monotheist. The word for "gods" and "God" is the same word -- elohim. You should know that. Therefore, "son of the gods" is a very accurate translation and, in light of Nebuchadnezzar polytheistic theology is most likely what he said. Why would he say "son of God" when he didn't even believe that God existed??? That doesn't make sense. See how knowing a little bit about history makes these issues so easy to deal with???
The KJV translates the same word (elohim) the same way (gods) well over 100 times (I decided not to count them all). Your own preferred version does the very same thing that you condemn modern versions for doing. This is but another instance of inconsistency on your part.
They didn't. You are merely attacking God's word.
You have made mistakes on this issue and you have said some things that are patently untrue. You have added to God's word and have condoned those who have added to God's word. Romans 1:25 has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. I have not changed the truth of God into a lie. I have shown that the MVs are completely truthful. For some reason, you just like to attack God's word.
Dear Kman, Thank you for your reply. I really appreciated it.
To all,
I also wanted to say (nothing new here) is that in my spirit I believe that when I read some "parts/fragments/words" of the King James Version that does not appear in other Bibles...., I believe that it (these words) could have been in some earlier manuscripts that no longer exist, or that their compilations were of sources that might not be available any longer or were found elsewhere which was lost, etc.
Don't forget over time, from early Christianity, many Bibles and manuscripts have been burned due to persecution.
Thereby, I am very, very thankful for the King James Version, although people call it a fuller Bible with Parallel copying or simply accidental copying. No matter how this fuller Bible occurred I am thankful that this Bible contains them and that they have not been removed.
I am also thankful for the other translations that have been produced over time.
But, like Paul told Timothy in II Timothy, to safeguard the treasure.
This is so vital, and I applaud all who do safeguard it and watch over it, the Good News.
Some word changes that are coming out in brand new translations, I believe, are changing the Scripture.
In that regard, I think probably if anyone of us had to choose only one Bible, well, what would we choose? Likely, the King James or one that is very similar. Would we grab our Living Bible or Message Bible or Good News Bible or whatever? Yes, we enjoy and love them, but would we choose it over all others?
But if we had the chance, and could only choose one, would not we opt for an interlinear Bible?
That would be my choice, I think.
When I see this forum, it does make my heart glad that there are those that will ensure (if they are able) the safeguard of the True Word of God. For that I am very thankful.
To all,
I also wanted to say (nothing new here) is that in my spirit I believe that when I read some "parts/fragments/words" of the King James Version that does not appear in other Bibles...., I believe that it (these words) could have been in some earlier manuscripts that no longer exist, or that their compilations were of sources that might not be available any longer or were found elsewhere which was lost, etc.
Don't forget over time, from early Christianity, many Bibles and manuscripts have been burned due to persecution.
Thereby, I am very, very thankful for the King James Version, although people call it a fuller Bible with Parallel copying or simply accidental copying. No matter how this fuller Bible occurred I am thankful that this Bible contains them and that they have not been removed.
I am also thankful for the other translations that have been produced over time.
But, like Paul told Timothy in II Timothy, to safeguard the treasure.
This is so vital, and I applaud all who do safeguard it and watch over it, the Good News.
Some word changes that are coming out in brand new translations, I believe, are changing the Scripture.
In that regard, I think probably if anyone of us had to choose only one Bible, well, what would we choose? Likely, the King James or one that is very similar. Would we grab our Living Bible or Message Bible or Good News Bible or whatever? Yes, we enjoy and love them, but would we choose it over all others?
But if we had the chance, and could only choose one, would not we opt for an interlinear Bible?
That would be my choice, I think.
When I see this forum, it does make my heart glad that there are those that will ensure (if they are able) the safeguard of the True Word of God. For that I am very thankful.
joshknighton
New Member
Okay GM, you said that your weren't going to beat anyone down, but you said that I had conformed to the world?!
I am open minded enough to realize that it would be close minded to study only the NKJV.
The NKJV is a newer KJV. The KJV that you read was looked upon at a time period the same you look at the NKJV now.
1. The Bible wasn't written in English
2. The KJV that you read isn't the original English Translation.
3. God is the same yesterday, today, and tommorow. If He could guide men through translation of His word hundreds of years ago to their common language, why can't He now?
I am open minded enough to realize that it would be close minded to study only the NKJV.
The NKJV is a newer KJV. The KJV that you read was looked upon at a time period the same you look at the NKJV now.
1. The Bible wasn't written in English
2. The KJV that you read isn't the original English Translation.
3. God is the same yesterday, today, and tommorow. If He could guide men through translation of His word hundreds of years ago to their common language, why can't He now?
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
.............and once again, in typical predictable fashion, you bring nothing to the table. The second sentence is an outright lie, but I am sure that you already know that. You have never provided any Scriptural Support for KJV-Onlyism.
RaptureReady
New Member
Pure and utter foolishness. Absolute nonsense. Unbelievable. A mockery of God's word. </font>[/QUOTE]Not a mockery, not a proof, just something to ponder. BTW, he was 46 when he died.
Proof of what?? You honestly believe that seeing someone's name imbedded somewhere actually proves something about God's word?? You have to be kidding. To use a 16th century playwright as proof of the authenticity of God's word is pure and utter foolishness. It is unbiblical and demeaning to God's word.
Pastor Larry asked:
Proof of what??
Proof (again) that Homebound has absolutely, positively, no clue what he is talking about.
Shakespeare was born on April 23, 1564, and died on April 23, 1616 (seriously!).
Hey Homebound: Do the math.
Incidentally, the idea that a [gasp] playwright would have had anything to do with the translation of the Bible is nearly as ridiculous now as it was in the 1600s.
Proof of what??
Proof (again) that Homebound has absolutely, positively, no clue what he is talking about.
Shakespeare was born on April 23, 1564, and died on April 23, 1616 (seriously!).
Hey Homebound: Do the math.
Incidentally, the idea that a [gasp] playwright would have had anything to do with the translation of the Bible is nearly as ridiculous now as it was in the 1600s.