Does having imperfect translations attack God's character and preservation?

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Dina:
Reminds me of the faith healers who blame the people who are not healed on a lack of faith or sin.

That is the only answer they have to explain the archaic words. The suggestion to use a dictionary is not always appropriate because the dictionary will likely give the 21st Century meaning of the words and not the 1769 meaning. I refer back to the list of words Dr. Bob posted that people do not and will not understand.

If we are to rely on other people to interpret the Bible, then we are back to the same issue the KJVo's bring up.

I say again, if it is up to us for interpretation that we need to start reading the TR in its original Greek and if we don't have the "faith" to read Greek, then we are lacking in spirituality.

I will again ask this question here so that Michelle will see it. Michelle: In your opinion, Is the "PUNCTUATION" in the KJV part of the "INSPIRED" Words of God?

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Phillip quoted:

If this is actually the case, then why don't we just use a copy of the textus receptus and let the Holy Spirit give us the meaning of the difficult words (Since it is Greek, they are ALL difficult for me.) But, we would be sure to be accurate, wouldn't we?
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

The KJV is the Textus Receptus in the english language, for english speaking people. This term means the commonly accepted or recieved words of God among the believing churches, throughout the ages.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Dina]

>>The KJV is the Textus Receptus in the english language<<

Can you explain that one? I have never heard that. Proof?

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Dina quoted:

Ah, of course it HAS to be me, it can't possibly be that God uses a different version than the KJB.
--------------------------------------------------

I never said God couldn't, or wouldn't use another version. I was indicating possible reasons people do not understand the KJV. God has used many things in my walk that I now know I should stay away from, and so I do.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Phillip quoted:

That is the only answer they have to explain the archaic words. The suggestion to use a dictionary is not always appropriate because the dictionary will likely give the 21st Century meaning of the words and not the 1769 meaning. I refer back to the list of words Dr. Bob posted that people do not and will not understand.
--------------------------------------------------

Phillip,

This does not make any sense. It is okay for the translators and scholars of today to be able to give you the proper definition of the archaic word, but not the dictionary? Where do the scholars get the understanding from? So yet again, we must rely upon the wisdom of the scholars for everything?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Dina]

>>God has used many things in my walk that I now know I should stay away from, and so I do.<<

What sticks out when I read this is "*I* now know *I* should stay away from, and so *I* do.

If that is what God had laid on your heart then yes, you should obey. But to assume that other Christians should "stay away from" other versions is adding man made rules.

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Dina,

There is a wonderful book called "Touch not the unclean thing" by David H. Sorenson. Textus Receptus is a latin term for the Recieved Text, which down through the centuries it was the text that was recieved or accepted by most all groups.

The KJV is this recieved text in the english language.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Dina quoted:

If that is what God had laid on your heart then yes, you should obey. But to assume that other Christians should "stay away from" other versions is adding man made rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dina,

I have not told you or anyone else that you must use the KJV. It is up to you to decide what you will use.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[LarryN]

Michelle wrote:

The KJV is the Textus Receptus in the english language, for english speaking people. This term means the commonly accepted or recieved words of God among the believing churches, throughout the ages.

Are you at all familiar with the history of the TR? Erasmus pieced the text together (using the "dreaded" technique of textual criticism) from several different, late-dated, non-consistant manuscripts (he had to pick & choose from among the variant wordings in the manuscripts, and he made his determination what the "correct" reading should be)- even resorting to using the Latin Vulgate for the last several verses of Revelation, since his manuscript of Revelation was missing these verses. How does this 16th century, brand new compilation (never before existing in this exact format) represent the exact Words of God "throughout the ages"? Did God's Word suddenly come into existance in the 1500's, with Desiderius Erasmus' work?

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
The KJV is this recieved text in the english language.
--------------------------------------------------

I think I need to clarify: the KJV is the english translation of the recieved text.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Dina]

>>Textus Receptus is a latin term for the Recieved Text, which down through the centuries it was the text that was recieved or accepted by most all groups.<<

Did a search on the book you suggested. This is the first thing that popped up http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/review_touch_not_the_unclean_thing_pr.htm

This is a paragraph from that page.

There is no such thing as THE TR (as Sorenson assumes) but rather only varying printed editions of the Greek New Testament dating from 1514 to 1633 which are collectively and rather loosely called the textus receptus (a term first used in 1633), though they differ from each other in numerous details, in some cases differing among themselves in thousands of details.

To put it politely at possible, I won't be getting the book you suggested. I have no desire to subject myself to reading something I do not believe

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
LarryN quoted:

How does this 16th century, brand new compilation (never before existing in this exact format) represent the exact Words of God "throughout the ages"? Did God's Word suddenly come into existance in the 1500's, with Desiderius Erasmus' work?
--------------------------------------------------

LarryN,

Do you understand what the Recieved Text is? The methods of textual critisism for the publication of the Recieved Text was based upon belief in the preservation of God's words within the churches. The textual critisism used for the critical greek text is based upon rationalism in modern scientific methods. These two approaches differ. Not to mention, the Recieved texts agree in the majority to one another, while there are numerous differences in the Alexandrian family which underline the critical text.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Dina quoted:

To put it politely at possible, I won't be getting the book you suggested. I have no desire to subject myself to reading something I do not believe
--------------------------------------------------

This of course is your decision. It is sad to see however, that you have no desire to learn the truth regarding this issue. Sorenson is not a KJVO. Just as I also am not KJVO. This label is commonly applied to anyone who can see the truth regarding this issue.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[TC]

Michelle,

Erasmus didn't compile the Greek text for use by the churches. He wanted a Greek text so that he could correct the errors he found in the Vulgate. That way the RCC would have corrected translation of the Vulgate to use. He edited the Greek manuscript several times and so did others after him. The term Textus Receptus (TR) was attached as a marketing ploy - a printer's attempt to sell more copies and make more money. It was not that it was really the "text received by all".

 

[LarryN]

Do you understand what the Recieved Text is? The methods of textual critisism for the publication of the Recieved Text was based upon belief in the preservation of God's words within the churches. The textual critisism used for the critical greek text is based upon rationalism in modern scientific methods. These two approaches differ. Not to mention, the Recieved texts agree in the majority to one another, while there are numerous differences in the Alexandrian family which underline the critical text.

My answer: YES, I am familiar with the meanings of the terms "Received Text", "Textus Receptus", "Majority Text", "Critical Text", etc.; and I'm reasonably well versed in the Alexandrian lineage, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and the varietal text families. Are you? I see that once again you failed to answer my question.

 

[LarryN]

Sorenson is not a KJVO. Just as I also am not KJVO.

WHOA, hold up here for a minute. Are you now just making this up as you go? Please let me (us) know in what way(s) you are NOT a KJVO.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Dina:
>>Textus Receptus is a latin term for the Recieved Text, which down through the centuries it was the text that was recieved or accepted by most all groups.<<

Did a search on the book you suggested. This is the first thing that popped up http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/review_touch_not_the_unclean_thing_pr.htm

This is a paragraph from that page.

There is no such thing as THE TR (as Sorenson assumes) but rather only varying printed editions of the Greek New Testament dating from 1514 to 1633 which are collectively and rather loosely called the textus receptus (a term first used in 1633), though they differ from each other in numerous details, in some cases differing among themselves in thousands of details.

To put it politely at possible, I won't be getting the book you suggested. I have no desire to subject myself to reading something I do not believe

Dina, you are a very wise person to check out recommendations. Too many people here seems to follow other's opinions by blind faith.

I commend you for your research and stance on what you have discovered.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

--------------------------------------------------
Dina quoted:

If that is what God had laid on your heart then yes, you should obey. But to assume that other Christians should "stay away from" other versions is adding man made rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dina,

I have not told you or anyone else that you must use the KJV. It is up to you to decide what you will use.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

No you haven't, but you have done everything from quote scripture (out of context-might I add) and state that the MV's are not God's Word to the point that you have heavily IMPLIED that anybody who does not read the KJV is not reading God's Word.

I grant that you have stopped doing that because of board rules and I commend you for that, but in pointing out scriptures in another post where you indicated that people would not listen to the Word of God--was your way of implying that another translation was wrong. The Bible says NOTHING about translations in English or other languages; He only promises to preserve His Word. It is preserved, very well, in the KJV and in my ESV.

 

[Phillip]

I certianly wish they would set the clock for about double the amount of time it is set for "editing", hint, hint, hint. Especially, for us po' ole folks that are still on dial-ups and lose our post if we don't get it posted....then wind up with three posts. Ah well, I'm just an "ignoramous ole poster here".

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Originally posted by Phillip:
I certianly wish they would set the clock for about double the amount of time it is set for "editing", hint, hint, hint. Especially, for us po' ole folks that are still on dial-ups and lose our post if we don't get it posted....then wind up with three posts. Ah well, I'm just an "ignoramous ole poster here".

yeah, this has happened to me today already, too..old 56K dial up...