I have a Cambridge Edition KJV. It has the same goofs & booboos the other KJV editions have, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.
-
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 am a KJVOs
- Thread starter rockytopva
- Start date
- Status
I have a Cambridge Edition KJV. It has the same goofs & booboos the other KJV editions have, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4.
Or any other valid bible translation, especially those in OUR language. God caused them to be made to keep His word in current language.
You should read those verses a little more-closely, as you apparently ignore the word "as" in V6. David is **COMPARING** God's words to silver purified 7 times, which was the standard for the silver used in the Tabernacle tools, & was the purest metal known in David's time. NOWHERE did he write that God's words have been purified 7 times! God's words were pure the instant He uttered them.
The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" comes straight from 7TH DAY ADVENTIST Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, the "foundation stone" for the current edition of the man-made KJVO myth. While he didn't originate that false sub-doctrine, he helped popularize it til it's now found in most KJVO material. It was proven false in earlier threads in this sub-forum.
HOW GOOFY!
"Yeshua" is Jesus' name in Hebrew. That what Joe & Mary named him at the angel Gabriel's direction. That's what people called Him.
His hame is "Iesous" in Greek, "Iesus' in Latin. "Jesus" is the Anglicized form of His name.
Next time, do some RESEARCH before you make another silly statement. This just goes to show most KJVOs arent too well-educated about the KJV itself.
BTW, I don't see any of the KJVOs here trying to deal with the fact that the KJVO myth is NOT found whatsoever in the KJV! Their feeble attempt to use Psalm 12:6-7 as a "proof text" was shot down over 50 years ago.
WHERE do those verses mention the KJV or any other bible translation? For that matter, where is any translation mentioned in Scripture at all, besides Peter's preaching at the "first pentecost"?
WHERE do those verses mention the KJV or any other bible translation? For that matter, where is any translation mentioned in Scripture at all, besides Peter's preaching at the "first pentecost"?
Guy 'Willson
New Member
The King James Version has stood the test of time and God has used it to convey the Gospel throughout the world during the English colonial period and the great missionary period. since the cessation of empire it continues to flourish. However it must also be borne in mind that the during the translation of the KJV there were changes made to the William Tyndale, Coverdale inputs to the Great Bible and Geneva Bible. These changes were not good because they allowed for King James's belief in the 'divine rights of kings' (the notion that a king had God's support to be a dictator) William Tyndale correctly translated EKKLESIA into congregation (assembly works here as well) and not church which should come from KURIOS or something that belongs to God, like the building. The Romish church used its translation into church as a justification to rule Christians as an organisation regardless of where. Tyndale's correct use of the Greek word at a stroke, disqualified denominationalism. King James fully embraced Henry VIII's notion of being the 'head' of Christianity in England. So to keep the King happy with their work the Romish translation of the word into church was restored along with denominationism. They also re-translated love as charity which was erroneous. That stated the KJV is still better that the NKJV and both are better that the modern bibles based on the Alexandrian texts which cut out vast swathes of scripture such as Acts 8:37 (baptism by faith) and the Johannine Comma. I use the KJV but I use the WTNT and the AMP to preach and teach. Guy Willson, Living Water Mission
He probably won't respond. I mean, think about it. He often criticizes Leland Ryken for not being a Bible translator yet writing about it. At least Ryken has a Ph.D. in a language (English, I believe), making him far more a linguist than Rippon. Also, Ryken served as style expert on the ESV, so at least he has actually worked on a translation. Rippon is in the same boat (with many holes
) as Ryken, since he has admitted on the BB (years ago) that he doesn't know any other language than English, and has never worked on a translation. I'd say that Ryken is far more of an authority then Rippon, but you'll not catch Rippon admitting that.So, if Rippon were to answers you honestly, he must admit the above. Furthermore, if he admits the above, it is tacit admittance that all of his knowledge is second hand, compared to Ryken who he criticizes, who has at least worked on a translation.
For the record, Translating Truth, which I recommended above as representing the essentially literal method, has 4 scholars as authors besides Ryken. One of those is Vern Poythress, one of the leading linguists among evangelicals. I highly recommend his great work on language, In the Beginning Was the Word. This book uniquely approaches language from trinitarianism.
Welcome to the BB.
May I suggest that you are confusing the written Word of God with the metaphor for Christ as the Word? We can hold in our hands the written Word of God. Christ as the Word is on the Father's right hand, as you say, but we can't touch Him as long as we are on the earth.
Christ is the Word in the sense of one meaning of the Greek word logos, in that He is the incarnate message of God to us. But again, that's a metaphor.
the Csb and the Esv seem to be somewhat more formal functional then the NLT/NIV,as in those translation appear to be into being a formal word for word as a general principle than the more thought for thought appraoch the Nlt/Niv prefers to take.
they do both tend to be more formal than the Niv though!
Yes, but what's with your constant use of exclamation marks? You need to break the habit.
Wow, do you consider the above to be a sentence?
Why don't you try to organize your thoughts before posting? Check your grammar and spelling. Attempt to be logical.
You said that "the CSB and ESV seem to be somewhat more formal functional then [sic] the NLT/NIV.
What in the world is a formal functional? It is a new term. You just made it up.
Then you went on with your word-for-word fable. Give it up man.
He's a hack when it comes to books on the subject of Bible translations.
As far as being an English stylist for the ESV, it is readily apparent that he failed in stunning fashion.
Don't forget Hitman Wayne Grudem as being one of the contributors.
JK, does the cat have your tongue?
ehbowen
Member
Welcome to the BB.
Thank you.
It's not a confusion. The purpose of the Scriptures...and also, the purpose of Jesus in his Incarnation...was so that we might be able to know the mind and the heart of God, not so that we might be able to win theological "gotcha" games or build ecclesiastical empires. Like it or not, languages change...I'll bet that half of the posters who speak of only using the "Authorized Version of 1611!" have never even actually SEEN the original Authorized Version of 1611! I have; it was virtually unreadable. We need to keep that purpose clearly in mind, and to remember when we are studying the Scriptures that we are dealing with a very real Person, not just concepts and doctrines. We may be separated from him now...but that separation could end, quite literally, at any time.
there are fully formal translations, and there are the mediating versions that tend to be between formal and free, and those pretty much full on DE!
Nas/Nkjv Esv/Csb/Niv Nlv Nlt
The Lord has given to us the scriptures in various languages, and in various formats/versions for a very long time!
J. K, in post 105 your first link doesn't work.
Your second link was written by someone identifying as James A. ThM. That's a curious moniker. He's hiding behind the work of David Cloud, the ultimate fabricator.
You really need to check your sources. Somonides of the 19th century did not invent the Codex Sinaiticus. That lie was put to rest by his contemporary, James Bradshaw.
That kind of absurdity is all too typical of KJVO folks.
Your second link was written by someone identifying as James A. ThM. That's a curious moniker. He's hiding behind the work of David Cloud, the ultimate fabricator.
You really need to check your sources. Somonides of the 19th century did not invent the Codex Sinaiticus. That lie was put to rest by his contemporary, James Bradshaw.
That kind of absurdity is all too typical of KJVO folks.
The Esv is the one of choice for calvinist and reformed Baptists!
ehbowen
Member
Oh, yes. I tend to think that the very first writing lesson involved the Father kneeling down in the clay with Adam and Eve, showing them how to use a stick to engrave cuneiform on a tablet of clay which could be fired and kept as a memento of that day...and, later, passed on down to Noah, Abraham, and Moses.
- Status