Have MV's caused more confusion than good?

[Keith M]

It is amazing me 5to me today how much of that is going on among churches today.

You're right about that. I won't go into details, but that is why my wife and I left the church where we were married over 21 years ago. Now, 21+ years later, there is a new pastor there. We visit occasionally, but people always say "You can't go back." It's true. That church - the body of believers that was there in 1986 - is not the same. Some have moved on. Others have passed into their eternal rewards. Others there have come since 1986. The church as we knew it in 1986 is no longer there, even though the building and grounds are there.

 

[Salamander]

I'd rather be confused than in error, though not all would agree. We could eliminate all confusion and still have everyone wrong. I don't support sticking with a certain translation or group of texts just to relieve confusion, especially if error has crept up because of it. And confusion can encourage further study, which is healthy.

Nope, I'd rather be wrong and correctable than confused and not sure what is correct.

 

[Salamander]

Do you have evidence that there was no confusion? Do you have proof? I do recall something about the common man not even being able to read the Scriptures - only priests being able to do that. Of course there's no confusion when someone else is telling you what something says and what to believe.

Sure I do, it's that Old Fashioned Independent Separated Baptist Church that has continued throughout the ages.

Besides, we are all priests when it comes to being a child of God.

When there is something found in the Scripture that seems to contradict what we think others say, we need to compare. Our false dogmas don't get too much puppychow when the harmony of all Scripture is taken into concern.

 

[Salamander]

If that were the case then how would you interpret what Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:15, 16?

"Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Did Paul write some things which were hard to understand because there was more than one Greek translation of the OT?

No, some things were hard for some to understand due to their carnality and a lack of study.

Untaught/ lack of study

Unstable/ carnal.

As far as more than one Greek translation of the O.T. being a factor, I dunno.

 

[Salamander]

Evidently, many folks misunderstood Askjo's assertion, by no fault of their own, since he refused to make his argument explicit. It wasn't about the phrases "is not true" and "is true". The two verses without context from the KJV --

If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. (John 5:31)
Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, [yet] my record is true:... (John 8:14a)
​

What he is claiming is that the KJV escapes the appearance of contradiction because John 5 uses the English word "witness", while in chapter 8 the word "record" is used. This is an utterly ridiculous (desperate) semantic excuse. Any appeal that these two English words are NOT synonymous is tantamount to accusing the 1611 revisors of outright mistranslation; to render the same underlying Greek word (with very similar context) with dissimilar meaning English words would be undeniable error. No, the apparent contradiction still exists in the KJV; ask any Atheist, they'll be glad to show it to you.


The Greek verb martureo (Strong's #3140) means to bear witness, the action of giving testimony. The verb form then is actually two words in KJV English: "bear witness" and "bear record". The Greek noun marturia (Strong's #3141) is that which one testifies, the verbal testimony itself (i.e. before a judge). The KJV's less familar rendering of the verb form obscures clarity for contemporary English readers; commonly other versions use a verb form (like "testify") with a corresponding noun form (like "testimony"). For example --

If I {alone} testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. (John 5:31, NASB)
Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true,... (John 8:14a, NASB)
​

The conjuction "if" has several uses depending on the intended meaning and can sometimes create ambiguities: "if" can indicate uncertainty, or "if" can be conditional, or "if" can be used in contrary-to-fact statements (hypothetical).

Regardless of the translation, carefull handling of the Word of God in context will reveal that there is no contradiction at all between these verses.

The context determines the differences between "witness" and "record"

John 5 Jesus has not had as much exposure to the poeple as he did in latter John 8.

IOW, not much of a record in John 5 as much as a witness, but more of the record/ fame throughout the land, concerning His miracles, of which the multitudes did follow Him, in John 8.

Again we find that the KJB is far Superior to the impression upon the mind.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So, a simple question. If you were a Christian in England in 1614 and were lucky enough to own a Geneva Bible would you have been confused by the preacher reading out of the MV (the KJV)?

No answer to this question? Did the "MV" of 1611 cause confusion to those used to the Geneva Bible?

 

[Rufus_1611]

No answer to this question? Did the "MV" of 1611 cause confusion to those used to the Geneva Bible?

It may have for a time. However, its intent and its result was the reduction of the few into one, providing a uniform translation for all. Confusion set in in the late 19th century, and increasingly into the 20th century when the one became hundreds.

 

[Keith M]

No answer to this question? Did the "MV" of 1611 cause confusion to those used to the Geneva Bible?

I'm sure it did, Roger. And I'm sure there were those who felt that the Geneva was good enough for them and didn't want anything to do with that new-fangled modern version that changed some familiar words. There may have even been a few who said the new version just wasn't the word of God since it didn't exactly follow the tried and true Geneva. Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it?

 

[Keith M]

It may have for a time. However, its intent and its result was the reduction of the few into one, providing a uniform translation for all. Confusion set in in the late 19th century, and increasingly into the 20th century when the one became hundreds.

Don't forget the differing readings in the various KJVs, Rufus. And the confusing discrepancy about the age of King Ahaziah when he began his reign (22 or 42?). Those things can also cause confusion.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Don't forget the differing readings in the various KJVs, Rufus. And the confusing discrepancy about the age of King Ahaziah when he began his reign (22 or 42?). Those things can also cause confusion.

Well that's what I dig about you Keith, even if I had forgotten I can always count on you to remind me

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

However, its intent and its result was the reduction of the few into one, providing a uniform translation for all.

I would love to ask for proof of this since they praised the multitude of translations, but that would be another thread.

 

[Rippon]

The 1611 caused a lot of constrenation rather than a benign confusion . Those who held dearly to their Geneva Bible rebuffed the KJV quite firmly . I think that the KJV did not attain solid acceptance until the 1660's .

 

[Salamander]

Of course their was objection to the "new" version known as the KJB of 1611, but as the printer's errors and spelling changes were made, and later corrected, it is still the KJB that holds its ground over the multiplicity of all these MV's.

The KJB remains the Pinnacle of all English translations in the very fact it is always referred to in any conversation at length about versions. Always has been, since 1611, and always will be. Why even those who are only KJB preferred resort to the Letter to the Reader for some sort of substancial "evidence", but we know why they said what they did as to not offend by what they were certain they had accomplished.:sleeping_2:

 

[TCassidy]

This is a perfect example of why you should toss your stupid Greek education out the window.

He took exactly 19 words to say what God said in the KJV with only 4 words.

yeesh!

ZOOM! Right over his head!

 

[tinytim]

Yeah, "I'm much more holy if i don't have that thar ed-ukaa-shun!!!"

And they wonder why others don't take them seriously!

 

[TCassidy]

The 1611 caused a lot of consternation rather than a benign confusion . Those who held dearly to their Geneva Bible rebuffed the KJV quite firmly . I think that the KJV did not attain solid acceptance until the 1660's .

And the only reason the KJV gained precedence over the Geneva was that the Geneva bible was eventually outlawed in England forcing people to switch to the KJV.

 

[Rippon]

But the American Pilgrims and the following generation still stuck with the Geneva primarily ( the Bishop's Bible still had some circulation though ) .

 

[gb93433]

But the American Pilgrims and the following generation still stuck with the Geneva primarily ( the Bishop's Bible still had some circulation though ) .

The Pilgrims are essentially gone today too.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Nope, I'd rather be wrong and correctable than confused and not sure what is correct.

OK, you're wrong! :laugh: (Just kidding; I couldn't pass up the opportunity.)

 

[franklinmonroe]

ZOOM! Right over his head!

Clearly, the full and complete meaning of God's words in Greek are not conveyed in just these four English words. Acts 17:11 (KJV) --

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.​

I will assert that the single English word "searched" is also inadequate. The word Luke wrote under the Holy Spirit's inspiration intended to communicate the example of investigating the scriptures deeply, a very thorough examination with intense scrutiny. "Searching" alone does not include these comparitive activities. In fact, the simple act of "searching" does not even imply the finding of anything.