Do you believe that John 3:6 was originally written in Latin?
-
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!
King James Version Bible vs. Modern english bible
- Thread starter KingJamesVersionBibleOnly
- Start date
- Status
Do you believe that John 3:6 was originally written in Latin?Duh, is that supposed to be news?
Hey, that's Van's line --plagiarist!
Same verses are found in newer Bible translations, except those whose translators had some doubt about the originality of parts of 1 John.
And the KJV might've been the best for 400 years ago, just as the Model T was the best car made in 1909, "the times, they are a-changin' ", and so has the English language. While the AV men had only some 20 manuscripts to work with, there are now some 5,000 mss or parts of mss. available to translators.
And again, there's simply NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth.
Let's not forget that GOD made all languages, and that He still superintends them. I believe He chose Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek as the languages to first present His word to man for several reasons:
1.) Hebrew was the language of old Israel, so, as God had chosen Israel as His peculiar people, and the Levites to record His word, it was naturally written in the Hebrew they then used. And Aramaic was the "lingua franca" of that time/place and remained so for a long time. It's not extremely different from Hebrew. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar, who spoke Aramaic, but not Hebrew, dictated his contribution to the Book of daniel in Aramaic.
Same for Koine Greek, which was in moch-more everyday use, even among the Romans in the Judea region, than Latin was. Apparently, almost all the jews of that area knew Koine Greek as well as Hebrew.
2.) God knew that those languages would "go dead" and thus not be subject to any changes, so His word remains constant in them.
As for translations, we all know that the major languages in constant use for centuries all change as time passes. ALL THESE CHANGES ARE ALLOWED/CAUSED BY GOD as part of His superintending of the languages. For this reason, He causes new translations to be made of His word to ensure it's kept in the common language of each translation's intended readership. We English users have the advantage and great blessing of the availability of many bible translations, old and new, to increase our overview of Scripture & to give the HOLY SPIRIT more to work with as He teaches us.
To believe GOD is limited in English to just one Bible translation is sheer folly. God did not intend His word to be encrypted or in code; He wants ALL to understand it and HEED it.
1.) Hebrew was the language of old Israel, so, as God had chosen Israel as His peculiar people, and the Levites to record His word, it was naturally written in the Hebrew they then used. And Aramaic was the "lingua franca" of that time/place and remained so for a long time. It's not extremely different from Hebrew. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar, who spoke Aramaic, but not Hebrew, dictated his contribution to the Book of daniel in Aramaic.
Same for Koine Greek, which was in moch-more everyday use, even among the Romans in the Judea region, than Latin was. Apparently, almost all the jews of that area knew Koine Greek as well as Hebrew.
2.) God knew that those languages would "go dead" and thus not be subject to any changes, so His word remains constant in them.
As for translations, we all know that the major languages in constant use for centuries all change as time passes. ALL THESE CHANGES ARE ALLOWED/CAUSED BY GOD as part of His superintending of the languages. For this reason, He causes new translations to be made of His word to ensure it's kept in the common language of each translation's intended readership. We English users have the advantage and great blessing of the availability of many bible translations, old and new, to increase our overview of Scripture & to give the HOLY SPIRIT more to work with as He teaches us.
To believe GOD is limited in English to just one Bible translation is sheer folly. God did not intend His word to be encrypted or in code; He wants ALL to understand it and HEED it.
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
It appears from what you have written, that you don't have much knowledge on textual matters, as your approach is very simplistic and wrong.
It matters nothing, if the modern versions of the Holy Bible have 1 million manuscripts, and the KJV 5. These 5 can be much more reliable that the whole million. All manuscripts are only "copies", as we do not have the original autographs, of either the Old or New Testament. So, if the oldest "copy", like the Codex Vatacinus, which dates from the middle of the 4th century A.D., was an inaccurate one, and full of intentional and unintentional "corrections", like the Jehovah's Witnesses do in John 1:1, where for theological reasons, they say, "and the Logos was a god", or changed or removed the word, then all "copies" thereafter that follow their text, will also follow their error. Sadly the history of the text of both Testaments is not taught with much deepness these days, and the greater majority of modern "scholars" are ignorant to most of the evidence that really matters.
I will give a couple of examples. The first being the "woman taken in adultery" (John 7:53-8:11), where the majority of modern versions, either omit the words completely, or include them in brackets and say something like, "some manuscripts have this", etc. While it is true, that the oldest surviving Greek manuscript that does have the passage, is of a late date, the Codex Bezae, of the 6th century. Yet, we have the solid testimony of the scholar, Jerome (of the Latin Vulgate), who wrote over 150 years earlier, that this passage was present "in many Greek and Latin codices", which obviously did not survive, but the fact is, that it was indeed part of John's Gospel, 150 years earlier! The KJV has the story. The second example that I want to show, is the ending of Mark's Gospel, which again is either removed or marked as doubtful in the majority of modern versions. One of the greatest textual scholars the Church has ever had, John Burgon, did a huge study on this passage, and has shown beyond any doubt, that the words that are "disputed", did form part of the original Gospel of Mark. Over 100 years later, no one has been able to prove his work wrong!
As for the modern versions, I shall quote from one of their very own "champions", Bruce Metzger:
"Lucian influenced the form of the New Testament, and parts of the Old Testament which were used, and are still used, by millions who never heard of his name" (Chapters in the History of New Testament textual criticism, p.27)
Here we have the name of one Lucian, who died in A.D., 312 whose Greek New Testament (and some of the Old), has influenced the majority of the modern versions that we have today, that are based on textual families that derive from his text. This man is known in Church history as the "father" of the arch-heretic, Arius, who taught that Jesus Christ is a mere creature, and other blasphemies! Yet his work is widely used in translations even this day!
I am compelled to respond because you are basing your thinking in erroroneous logic.
For instance, you post:
You admit to only copies. Copies you admit that have errors. Then does not every translation have errors, including the KJV?
The power behind your statement is because a person who was influential in his day, forgotten in the Middle Ages, but was the inspiration behind great classics and even modern scholars then what others write is de facto wrong. The is not an English scholar who has not indirectly or directly been influenced by the ancients. That one remarks of such influence does not make the work they did suspect any more than a heathen plumber’s work should be suspect.
You will need to do far better at proving Lucian the “father” of Arius. Arius had others who were influencers upon him.
You will also need to better prove Arius was heretical in his views of Christology. Not all theologians agree on these matters. Many do accept that The Word was eternal, but the Christ was virgin born. But that is for another thread. And “The Word became flesh” is indicating both eternal and a beginning.
A personal perspective:
I do not hold any of the ancients in high regard. They all were men of their times as we are of our own. We have all created waves in the pond of life as we splash around. Some are simpathetic and others not.
It matters so little who knows who, how famous, the influence or heritage.
What truly matters is if the work of the Holy Spirit is guiding when reading.
For it is the work of the Holy Spirit to guide a believer into all truth.
If the Holy Spirit uses other than the KJV, how dare anyone proclaim such as not of God, or some other grand claim I have heard from some who rank in the “only” group.
For instance, you post:
You admit to only copies. Copies you admit that have errors. Then does not every translation have errors, including the KJV?
The power behind your statement is because a person who was influential in his day, forgotten in the Middle Ages, but was the inspiration behind great classics and even modern scholars then what others write is de facto wrong. The is not an English scholar who has not indirectly or directly been influenced by the ancients. That one remarks of such influence does not make the work they did suspect any more than a heathen plumber’s work should be suspect.
You will need to do far better at proving Lucian the “father” of Arius. Arius had others who were influencers upon him.
You will also need to better prove Arius was heretical in his views of Christology. Not all theologians agree on these matters. Many do accept that The Word was eternal, but the Christ was virgin born. But that is for another thread. And “The Word became flesh” is indicating both eternal and a beginning.
A personal perspective:
I do not hold any of the ancients in high regard. They all were men of their times as we are of our own. We have all created waves in the pond of life as we splash around. Some are simpathetic and others not.
It matters so little who knows who, how famous, the influence or heritage.
What truly matters is if the work of the Holy Spirit is guiding when reading.
For it is the work of the Holy Spirit to guide a believer into all truth.
If the Holy Spirit uses other than the KJV, how dare anyone proclaim such as not of God, or some other grand claim I have heard from some who rank in the “only” group.
The makers of newer bible translations are no more dunderheads than the AV men were; they simply have more to work with, as well as quite a few more archaeological and historical discoveries. While they have doubtlessly seen mss. that have your examples in them, these gents have generally made their livings researching & translating full-time, and have a better knowledge of what belongs in Scripture & what doesn't. And I'm sure the HOLY SPIRIT wouldn't allow some portion of what DOES belong in Scripture to just vanish. But I don't think He prevents some people from ADDING to God's word at times.
And again, there's simply NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth. I believe God wishes for newer translations of His word to be made, as He causes/allows the languages to change.
Yes, the entire KJVO myth is MAN-MADE & false.
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
I am NOT KJVO!
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
I like the word-for-word translations, like the NKJV, HSCB, ASV, NASB, ESV, YLT. I also somewhat like the 1984 NIV, and original NLT.
So do I. I don't care for paraphrase versions.
Can we refrain from calling any translation "word-for-word" please? There ain't no such animal.
Even an interlinear can't strictly be "word-for-word."
You can use terms like "more form-oriented" although that itself isn't so descriptive. In most passages the form is but loosely translated.
Versions from the NASB to the NLT have more in common than substanial differences.
The theme of this thread is, a gent believes the KJV is the only valid English Bible version, the only accurate one. However, FACT & EVIDENCE proves this idea false. The KJV contains goofs & booboos.
The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" is false, coming to us straight outta a cult official's book, which was the "cornerstone' of the current KJVO myth.
TRUTH is, there's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO, even in the KJV itself.
KJVO is phony as a Ford Corvette.
The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" is false, coming to us straight outta a cult official's book, which was the "cornerstone' of the current KJVO myth.
TRUTH is, there's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for KJVO, even in the KJV itself.
KJVO is phony as a Ford Corvette.
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
IF, the KJV is the ONLY Bible version, then it must mean that this, and ONLY this version has been inspired by God the Holy Spirit, and God ONLY uses this version to bring souls to Himself! IF, God uses ANY other versions to save lost sinners, the the KJV cannot be the ONLY Bible version. There is no doubt that this is a fallacy that is promoted by some who are deluded into believing a complete LIE. I know that there have been people saved through God speaking to them through the New World Translation, of the Jehovah's Witnesses, as, though it does contain some of their twisted theology, yet for the greater majority it is the Word of God!
All Bible translations are paraphrases in reality. There are no "pure" translations when you go from one language to another. Translations are approximations as I have said for years on the BB.
The word 'paraphrase' is unfortunately used in a derogatory manner like you used it. But it means to reword to make things clear and understandable. Of course things have to be reworded --from one language to another . LOL!!
The Apostles and Jesus Himself paraphrased the Old Testament. Got a problem with that? Take it up with the Author.
For a good deal of Church History the common folk had to depend on Bible paraphrases. Just take a glance back to Europe in the Middle Ages.
The AV translators themselves wrote in their preface to the AV that even the meanest (poorest) English Bible translations, contain, nay, ARE the word of God. So we see that even the makers of the KJV were not KJVO.
There must be a distinction that a common believer may bring in sorting through the "popular versions." Perhaps a short two words that can be used to distinguish the Scriptures as translated more "formally" or "word for word" closer to the given manuscripts than those who are more generally using the contextual thought approach.
Therefore, I generally accept the use the term "word for word" for the KJV, NASB, ESV renderings, not in the sense of the exact word translation in the same word order used in the sentence structure, rather that the original word definition selected in the original language is accurately carried over into the English word selection rather then what is considered the contextual assumption of the passage (sort of what the NIV, and more extensively paraphrases do do).
I am not so illiterate as to need someone to assume I cannot read above a fifth grade level and do not have comprehension that exceeds that of a pre-teen. So when I read the Scriptures, I want the Scriptures, and not what someone has decided the contextual phrasing construction should render.
It matters very little to me if the Scriptures sound "wooden" as some have claimed of the NASB, or if the language of orators is used as some consider the KJV, or if the earnest expectation of exactness addresses even the terms of gender and social station as the ESV does, as long as the Word is as closely aligned with the original manuscripts as possible.
Too often, imo, the typical pew sitter is more inclined to distractions then to concentration.
Therefore, the presentation of the Scriptures must be as precisely presented as possible in such a manner as to bring clarity.
When reading, or presenting orally, it must be done not only to bring clarity, but meaning. That brings such terms as dramatic expression, and volume emphasis.
If one is reading the Garden prayers, then lift that voice to that of one making earnest appeal, and do not mock by reading it without expression.
If one is reading of the shadow of death and the sustaining in the face of opposition, then read it with the victoriousness it deserves.
Cause the reading of the Scriptures to be marvelous to the hearing ears.
Therefore, I generally accept the use the term "word for word" for the KJV, NASB, ESV renderings, not in the sense of the exact word translation in the same word order used in the sentence structure, rather that the original word definition selected in the original language is accurately carried over into the English word selection rather then what is considered the contextual assumption of the passage (sort of what the NIV, and more extensively paraphrases do do).
I am not so illiterate as to need someone to assume I cannot read above a fifth grade level and do not have comprehension that exceeds that of a pre-teen. So when I read the Scriptures, I want the Scriptures, and not what someone has decided the contextual phrasing construction should render.
It matters very little to me if the Scriptures sound "wooden" as some have claimed of the NASB, or if the language of orators is used as some consider the KJV, or if the earnest expectation of exactness addresses even the terms of gender and social station as the ESV does, as long as the Word is as closely aligned with the original manuscripts as possible.
Too often, imo, the typical pew sitter is more inclined to distractions then to concentration.
Therefore, the presentation of the Scriptures must be as precisely presented as possible in such a manner as to bring clarity.
When reading, or presenting orally, it must be done not only to bring clarity, but meaning. That brings such terms as dramatic expression, and volume emphasis.
If one is reading the Garden prayers, then lift that voice to that of one making earnest appeal, and do not mock by reading it without expression.
If one is reading of the shadow of death and the sustaining in the face of opposition, then read it with the victoriousness it deserves.
Cause the reading of the Scriptures to be marvelous to the hearing ears.
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 10:30 PM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 10:30 PM Pacific.
- Status