KJV and the modern versions

[dfj]

Good Points

I agree. This is exactly something that, if it were the other way, would seem to be a slam dunk for the KJVO crowd but since it's the other way, they STILL will use it against the MV. :BangHead:

If someone were confused by it, the NIV is clear to point out the other instance of a parallel passage to clear up any misconception. However, the NIV writers were being faithful to the original texts and I respect them for that. I also respect the KJV writers for adding in "the brother of" in italics. However, I wish the KJVO crowd would understand that those words were added for one reason or another - just the same as the MV writers do at times to make something more clear.

Both the KJV and the NIV are correct in this passage, IMO.

You make some very good points here Ann. I am not against any Translation that tries to be faithful. All have their place.

However I do believe that it is the responsibility of all professing Christians to study and apply God's Word(s). Not just for intellectual pursuit but for the Love of God and the Family of Believers.

Surly there can be no dispute regarding the passages explaining the "Fruit" of the Spirit?

 

[dfj]

Translation Objectives

It is a truth that something cannot be and not be at the same time in the same sense. God could not have said that it ‘was Goliath,’ and at the same time and in the same sense said it was ‘not Goliath but rather his brother,’ and still be the inspired and inerrant Words of God. One or the other must of necessity be in error.

So we have a decision to make. Is the NIV right or the KJV right? That is the honest question that needs to be answered. I will stand by faith on the KJV without the least shred of doubt.

Exegesis or Isogesis, that is the question?

T'wether it be nobler in the mind to be faithful to the original text given by God or add and subtract terms and phrases?

Adding and subtracting does not always mean distortion of the outlying precept that God wishes us to understand.

 

[annsni]

HP: Why would it? The KJV was the Word of God in that it was the ‘ brother of Goliath,’ not Goliath himself (as the NIV wrongly states) that the verse spoke of, in agreement to the original words given to us by God.

It is a truth that something cannot be and not be at the same time in the same sense. God could not have said that it ‘was Goliath,’ and at the same time and in the same sense said it was ‘not Goliath but rather his brother,’ and still be the inspired and inerrant Words of God. One or the other must of necessity be in error.

So we have a decision to make. Is the NIV right or the KJV right? That is the honest question that needs to be answered. I will stand by faith on the KJV without the least shred of doubt.

So can you show evidence of any manuscript that has "the brother of" in it? Are any of the manuscripts we have the Word of God? Or is it only the KJV and we didn't have the Word of God until 1611?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dfj: T'wether it be nobler in the mind to be faithful to the original text given by God

HP: Now that sounds real good on the surface, but places you in a quandary. First, where are the originals you and Ann speak about, and IF the NIV is faithful to the original texts, did God say it was Goliath that was killed in this text or his brother, or have you changed your mind as to the verbal inspiration by God of the Scriptures, or did God just leave us in the dark as to what is really true?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: So can you show evidence of any manuscript that has "the brother of" in it? Are any of the manuscripts we have the Word of God? Or is it only the KJV and we didn't have the Word of God until 1611?

HP: On this thread, the duty and responsibility to ask pointed questions lies solely on my shoulders, thank you very much. What right do you have to simply usurp that responsibility? :laugh:

 

[annsni]

HP: On this thread, the duty and responsibility to ask pointed questions lies solely on my shoulders, thank you very much. What right do you have to simply usurp that responsibility? :laugh:

I'm a woman - so that makes me right!! :laugh:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Seriously Ann, I am not a textual expert, (not that you had not already figured that out) and have a hard enough time understanding English. Whether or not any available manuscripts have it clearer I do not know, but I believe is that the Spirit of God so testified to the translators of that truth that they wrote the KJV to reflect the Spirit’s leading.

 

[dfj]

No Quandary

HP: Now that sounds real good on the surface, but places you in a quandary. First, where are the originals you and Ann speak about, and IF the NIV is faithful to the original texts, did God say it was Goliath that was killed in this text or his brother, or have you changed your mind as to the verbal inspiration by God of the Scriptures, or did God just leave us in the dark as to what is really true?

No Quandary at all, just whatever you think is important to the understanding of the intent of the passage.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Dfj: No Quandary at all, just whatever you think is important to the understanding of the intent of the passage.

HP: How does this answer the questions I asked?? So if I am a Calvinist I can simply add whatever to the text I feel is important, and so goes for the Arminiam and all others as long as what they add is what they feel is the 'intent of the passage?' I think we may be on to something as to why we have such proliferation of translations.

 

[Amy.G]

Just curious HP, what is your opinion of the NKJV? It has the same reading as the KJV in 2 Sam regarding the "brother of Goliath".

The NKJV always gets lumped in with "modern versions" (including the scorn) even though it is an update or revision of the KJV, just as the 1789 KJV was an update of the 1611.

 

[annsni]

Seriously Ann, I am not a textual expert, (not that you had not already figured that out) and have a hard enough time understanding English. Whether or not any available manuscripts have it clearer I do not know, but I believe is that the Spirit of God so testified to the translators of that truth that they wrote the KJV to reflect the Spirit’s leading.

I'm also not a textual expert but I'm pretty good at googling. But even the KJVO sites basically say that the translators saw that it didn't include "the brother of" in the 2 Samuel passage but did in the 1 Chronicles passage and so added it to the 2 Samuel one to make it agree. That is fine because I do think it agrees. I also do know that the Hebrew language was different than our own and it is right to call Jesus "the son of David" when Jesus was not David's own son. So there may be a correct writing in saying that the one guy killed Goliath when it meant his brother. I don't know. But I do know that the modern versions including the NIV and the ESV, both of which I have sitting on my desk clearly point out that the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles says something a little different and thus compares the two passages. I think that's a correct way to translate a difficult passage.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: Just curious HP, what is your opinion of the NKJV? It has the same reading as the KJV in 2 Sam regarding the "brother of Goliath".

The NKJV always gets lumped in with "modern versions" (including the scorn) even though it is an update or revision of the KJV, just as the 1789 KJV was an update of the 1611.

HP: I personally do not use it. I never forget the first time I heard about it. I was working along listening to Christian radio, when the preacher who was promoting it said, “And it’s pre-millenial!” I remember stopping abruptly when he said that and telling myself, I do not know what has been tampered with but it is obvious something has been tinkered with.

I have never tried research it as I have with the NIV. There are web sites that have looked into it and claim it is not simply another KJV Bible, has numerous word changes and omissions, and varies from the text used by the KJ (MT) numerous times.

Check it out for yourself. As for me, I have the Word of God in a trustworthy translation, known and used by the Church for over 400 years. It has been a faithful guide to my forefathers and will guide me safely home. The KJV is my Bible.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: But I do know that the modern versions including the NIV and the ESV, both of which I have sitting on my desk clearly point out that the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles says something a little different and thus compares the two passages. I think that's a correct way to translate a difficult passage

.

HP: You well may have a good point on this one. :thumbs:

Comparing between passages is a far cry from bringing in completely differing texts, and then by some theory devised by man to his liking decides to lift an obscure and aberrant text to the forefront by saying “The most reliable early manuscripts do not have” these words, verses, or chapter.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: I personally do not use it. I never forget the first time I heard about it. I was working along listening to Christian radio, when the preacher who was promoting it said, “And it’s pre-millenial!” I remember stopping abruptly when he said that and telling myself, I do not know what has been tampered with but it is obvious something has been tinkered with.

I have never tried research it as I have with the NIV. There are web sites that have looked into it and claim it is not simply another KJV Bible, has numerous word changes and omissions, and varies from the text used by the KJ (MT) numerous times.

Check it out for yourself. As for me, I have the Word of God in a trustworthy translation, known and used by the Church for over 400 years. It has been a faithful guide to my forefathers and will guide me safely home. The KJV is my Bible.

Whoever said it is pre-millennial is just plain goofy.

I have checked it out and am still checking it out after 4 years, and have found no differences between it and the KJV except that I can understand it FAR better. I use the "King James Bible Commentary" along with my NKJV studies and find no problem in doing so. They compliment one another perfectly.

This is something you should check it out before you accept goofy statements like "the NKJV is pre-millennial".

 

[annsni]

.

HP: You well may have a good point on this one. :thumbs:

Comparing between passages is a far cry from bringing in completely differing texts, and then by some theory devised by man to his liking decides to lift an obscure and aberrant text to the forefront by saying “The most reliable early manuscripts do not have” these words, verses, or chapter.

I'm right??

I'm right??

I'm right??

Woo-hoo!! Call my husband!! Tell him I'm right!!!!!!!!!

**Dancing around the room**

Heavenly Pilgrim said that I just may be right!!!

OK - well, he said I may have a good point, but I'm going to take that as

I'M RIGHT!!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: I'M RIGHT!!

HP: Shhhh! Not so loud. Besides, it was not really your place to be right. You should have asked your husband in the first place.:laugh: :laugh: :tonofbricks:

 

[annsni]

HP: Shhhh! Not so loud. Besides, it was not really your place to be right. You should have asked your husband in the first place.:laugh: :laugh: :tonofbricks:

:laugh:

But of course he'd tell me I was right! Who do you think taught me all I know??

 

[antiaging]

I do not see anything condemning in their quotes. Remember that "sacraments" doesn't mean an act imparting grace to everyone. It was common to call communion and baptism "sacraments" in the past. We have a newer definition. Note Noah Webster's definition of "sacrament" in 1828:

" In present usage, an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual grace; or more particularly, a solemn religious ceremony enjoined by Christ, the head of the christian church, to be observed by his followers, by which their special relation to him is created, or their obligations to him renewed and ratified. Thus baptism is called a sacrament, for by it persons are separated from the world, brought into Christ's visible church, and laid under particular obligations to obey his precepts. The eucharist or communion of the Lord's supper, is also a sacrament, for by commemorating the death and dying love of Christ, christians avow their special relation to him, and renew their obligations to be faithful to their divine Master. When we use sacrament without any qualifying word, we mean by it,
4. The eucharist or Lord's supper."

Today I know that when I hear "sacrament", I think of the idea that the thing that is being done is the thing that gives grace to the person. Having been adopted into a Catholic family and having gone to Catholic school, I know that the sacraments of baptism and communion mean something very different to Catholics and others than it does to us in my Baptist church. We call them "ordinances" to get away from the idea of "mystery" that a sacrament involves but years ago, I think it was much more common for believers to call it a sacrament.

I see something. Mary worship is a form of idol worship.
You may only worship God alone, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
If you worship anything else or anyone else it is a sin; idolatry.
One of those quotes said he thought that Jesus worship is equal to Mary Worship.
Idolatry/blasphemy

Look what the Hort and Westcott text did to this man that was involved in the NASV version:

Dr. Frank Logsdon was co-founder of The New American Standard Version. As people begin confronting Dr. Logsdon on some the NASV's serious omissions and errors. He re-examined the evidence and this was his verdict:


"I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord . . . I wrote the format . . . I wrote the preface . . . I'm in trouble; . . . its wrong, terribly wrong; its frighteningly wrong . . .The deletions are absolutely frightening . . . there are so many . . . Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"

Dr. Frank Logsdon
Co-founder, New American Standard Version
http://www.av1611.org/attack.html

 

[rbell]

I see something. Mary worship is a form of idol worship.
You may only worship God alone, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
If you worship anything else or anyone else it is a sin; idolatry.
One of those quotes said he thought that Jesus worship is equal to Mary Worship.
Idolatry/blasphemy

Look what the Hort and Westcott text did to this man that was involved in the NASV version:

(not worth reading)

You are using a liars' website to "prove" your allegations. You have no credibility here.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: This is something you should check it out before you accept goofy statements like "the NKJV is pre-millennial".

HP: Would it suffice to tell you that my wife reads the NKJV and tells me she likes it?