• 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!

KJV Wrongly Translates the Hebrew

Status
Not open for further replies.
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Logos1560 said:
Do KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates consistently grant other English Bible translators the exact, same amount of leeway to choose one out of the range of claimed possible meanings for original-language words of Scripture as they are so willing to grant to the makers of the KJV?

KJV defenders seem in effect to be very tolerate or flexible in granting the KJV translators a great deal of leeway in their translation decisions while in contrast being very inflexible or rigid in their assertions concerning the translation decisions of other English Bible translators and in what they allege or claim to be inaccurate or wrong in them.

If the same amount of leeway in translation decisions was granted to other English Bibles translators, would most of KJV-only allegations or claims against present English Bible translations fall away?
Click to expand...

some KJV defenders are under the assumption, that this version alone is "Inspired" by God the Holy Spirit, and all others are not. It is almost like idol worship.
 
Dave G

Dave G

Well-Known Member
Logos1560 said:
Do KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates consistently grant other English Bible translators the exact, same amount of leeway to choose one out of the range of claimed possible meanings for original-language words of Scripture as they are so willing to grant to the makers of the KJV?
Click to expand...
Probably not.
But I cannot speak for them.
Logos1560 said:
KJV defenders seem in effect to be very tolerate or flexible in granting the KJV translators a great deal of leeway in their translation decisions while in contrast being very inflexible or rigid in their assertions concerning the translation decisions of other English Bible translators and in what they allege or claim to be inaccurate or wrong in them.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the inflexibility has more to do with the manuscripts being used, and not necessarily the wider range of words that the English language offers when it comes to carrying God's words over from the original languages.
Logos1560 said:
If the same amount of leeway in translation decisions was granted to other English Bibles translators, would most of KJV-only allegations or claims against present English Bible translations fall away?
Click to expand...
In my opinion?
No.
The problem is not the amount of leeway given ( which should be as minimal as possible, IMO ) with regard to carrying over God's words from the source language into the target language...although some would make that objection.

The problem that I see most "KJV-Only" advocates zeroing in on, is not only the sheer number of competing English translations of the Bible that are constantly being produced today,
but the ( optional ) "necessity" for an updated standard that is both faithful and accurate to the preserved word of God in the original languages ( which, to them...and I happen to agree... are the "Received Text" ( Byzantine ) in the Greek and the Ben Chayyim "Masoretic" Text in the Hebrew ) is constantly and consistently being ignored.

The disagreement is not only with the source texts, it is also with the honestly-held belief that many of today's translators are taking more and more liberties with their translation techniques in what is, to many, an overwhelmingly obvious attempt at making money for publishing houses... and has nothing whatsoever to do with ever arriving at a better standard in English.


Therefore, continuing to argue that "KJV-Only" ( or "TR-Only" ones like myself ) advocates aren't granting other translators enough leeway in their language renderings, isn't touching upon the real problem, as I see it.

The words, verses and whole passages that have either been subtracted, added or entirely changed when compared to a 400 year old translation that has been considered the word of God by millions since long before any of us were born, are ( and will continue to be ) the real problem.
 
Last edited:
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dave G said:
I'm not sure, but I'd hazard a guess that it is.
That said, I do indeed see a connection between what is stated in Jeremiah 17:9 and what is stated in both the Psalms and Romans 1:18-32.
Click to expand...
What particular place in Psalms are you thinking of? Thanks.
 
Dave G

Dave G

Well-Known Member
Psalms 5.
Psalms 10.
Psalms 11.
Psalms 14.
Psalms 58:3.

and anyplace that compares and contrasts the wicked with the righteous.
 
Dave G

Dave G

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
do you know THE Version of the Holy Bible that was the Standard in the Church for over 1000 years? Not the KJV, but the Latin Vulgate!
Click to expand...
Which church would that be...
The one headquartered at Rome?

That is the only one that I know of that continued in the Latin for over 1,000 years... and it did so with little to no regard to giving the Bible to the people in their own languages, SBG.
On a side note, the "Greek" ( Eastern ) Orthodox Church continued to use the Koine Greek, and did not adopt the Latin, Vulgate or otherwise.

I am also convinced that the "Protestant Reformation" came about, in part, because of that very problem...
Not having a Bible that people could read and understand for themselves in their own language.

In addition,
I believe that God has indeed provided His words to His people, wherever they were in the world, outside of that institution in spite of its stranglehold on preaching and teaching the Bible over the centuries.
 
Last edited:
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
I had perceived by experience, how that it was impossible to stablish the lay people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order, and meaning of the text.”

—William Tyndale, Preface to the Pentateuch, 1530
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
To SavedByGrace (and certainly else may share their thoughts):

Based on the meaning you believe the words have in Jeremiah 17:9, what is your interpretation of the verse? What does it mean that the heart is sick or diseased? In what sense is it incurable?
 
Salty

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 330 PM EDT / 1230 pm PDT
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
rlvaughn said:
To SavedByGrace (and certainly else may share their thoughts):

Based on the meaning you believe the words have in Jeremiah 17:9, what is your interpretation of the verse? What does it mean that the heart is sick or diseased? In what sense is it incurable?
Click to expand...

since this verse describes the sinful human heart, and therefore spiritual, it is "desperately sick", which is a description of the whole human being, as we read in Psalm 38:3-4, "There is no soundness in my flesh because of your indignation;
there is no health in my bones because of my sin. For my iniquities have gone over my head; like a heavy burden, they are too heavy for me."

Which only the Lord can "heal" when a sinner comes to Him in repentance and faith, and given a new life.

"And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh." (Ezekiel 36:26)
 
R

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
SavedByGrace said:
since this verse describes the sinful human heart, and therefore spiritual, it is "desperately sick", which is a description of the whole human being, as we read in Psalm 38:3-4, "There is no soundness in my flesh because of your indignation;
there is no health in my bones because of my sin. For my iniquities have gone over my head; like a heavy burden, they are too heavy for me."

Which only the Lord can "heal" when a sinner comes to Him in repentance and faith, and given a new life.

"And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh." (Ezekiel 36:26)
Click to expand...
Thanks. I find this interesting in that you (at least in what you post here) do not explain it in any way that is different from how in my own experience I have heard people in describe the "sinful human heart" using that text from the King James translation. Man is sinful (a synonym of wicked); he is sick and God is the only one who can heal him of his disease, he is blind and God is the only one who can give him sight, he is bound and God is the only one who can set him free.
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
rlvaughn said:
Thanks. I find this interesting in that you (at least in what you post here) do not explain it in any way that is different from how in my own experience I have heard people in describe the "sinful human heart" using that text from the King James translation. Man is sinful (a synonym of wicked); he is sick and God is the only one who can heal him of his disease, he is blind and God is the only one who can give him sight, he is bound and God is the only one who can set him free.
Click to expand...

I agree with the "theology" of the KJV's "wicked"; but not this being the correct translation of the Hebrew.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top