Language changing demands a new version?

[robycop3]

I love the way you people equate the Word of God with man's ability to increase in knowledge and manufacturing, and there it is: man "improving" on God's Word!:smilewinkgrin:

But that's EXACTLY what the AV men did...because KJ didn't like the Geneva's footnotes, and the HUMAN Anglican clergy wanted one 'universal' version, appointed to be read in churches. Actually, they coulda done w/o the KJV for some 150 years, as the GB's English was current for the times. We coulda had a "King George Version" instead. The KJV came about because of a groupa men "correcting" and "improving" upon God's word. So, if ya don't believe we needed new versions in OUR generation, ya shouldn't believe that KJ & Co. needed a new version in THEIR time. They already had several versions in their style of English.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Salamander: //I edited the "vulgarity" of the wordings
you quoted with astericks.//

Well, at least you are a mentally honest KJVO
with integrity. You believe the words are more important
than the ideas. The KJV rendition of Isaiah 36:12 contains a vulgar word
(according to many dictionaries, a book which keeps track
of such stuff); the CSB = Christian Standard Bible
(Holman, 2003), does not use vulgar words for the
same concepts. It is the words which might be vulgar,
not the ideas. But true KJVOs must believe that
the words are what is important (or in this case, vulgar).
This leads to great contradicion,
for the original N.T. words were mostly Greek, not English;
the original O.T. words were mostly Hebrew, not English.

 

[Phillip]

Attacks against mainstream modern versions of the English Bible are against bulletin board rules. Therefore, if a person makes an attack with generalized statements regarding a translation's translators capability at translating Hebrew or Greek, or their command of the English language there is no difference because this points towards a weakened translation. Unwarranted and unproveable attacks against translators of mainstream modern English versions will therefore be edited by me just as quickly as an attack against the Bible they translated.

In other words, I will not tolerate statements indicating the translators of the NKJV were not capable people in the language they translated from or into. The NKJV is a great translation with background texts that many people here think are superior texts. Therefore, unless you know of something specific about a translator, keep your mouth shut about him or her.

 

[Ed Edwards]

rbell: //you're equating God with the Word of God. And
by your statement, I can assume any version--including
the AV--is "man trying to improve upon God.//

Amen, Brother Rbell, you are so RIGHT ON!

AKA (also known as): the double standard.
Here is the double standard: the KJVs are not 'man trying
to improve upon God'; the MVs are 'man trying
to improve upon God'.

BTW, YES, dynamic languages need continuing new versions.
This is PROVED by the KJVs which even today continue to
be revised, changed, edited. I personally use two KJVs on
a daily basis and a third on a weekly basis:

1. KJV1611 Edition (electronic & paper)
2. KJV1769 Edtion (electronic & paper)
3. KJV1873 Edtion (paper only)

:wavey: Praise God for the KJVs! :wavey:

 

[Keith M]

No, iIm equating God with the God of ability to keep His Word intact and without confusing the context by any bias against the KJB.

Salamander, you as well as most KJVO myth supporters, equate God with weakness. You don't think He has the power to preserve His word in various English translations. You think He is so weak that He can only preserve His word in one version. That is laughable blasphemy, Salamander. :laugh:

 

[Scott J]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott J
Err, you mean people should be dependent on someone else to tell them what the Bible means? Isn't how we got 1000 years of biblical ignorance as the RCC corrupted the faith more and more to enrich and empower vain men?

Nice try, but to no avail. The dark Ages were the result of those who had education to oppress those who didn't.

Which is pretty much what KJVO's are attempting to do in a slightly more subtle way. The Vulgate-only crowd arbitrarily determined that Latin was the language of heaven... not dissimilar from KJVO claims about the wording and language of the KJV.

From there they bullied, deceived uninformed/misinformed people into believing the Vulgate was the only God approved Bible. Sounds very familiar again. They took advantage of their fears of straying from the "true faith". Again a direct parallel. Ultimately, they told people that they weren't in the faith if they disagreed with LVO. Not all, but many, KJVO's imply or plainly state that anyone who isn't KJVO isn't saved.

I am PROMOTING education and NOT denying anyone the opportunity to KNOW what the Bible says verses what others THINK the Bible says.

To the minor degree that is true, you are DEMANDING rather than promoting that people do something that is completely unnecessary. The Bible has been accurately translated into the language they know and use. Using your logic, we should just drop English altogether and demand that people learn the original languages.

They can know what the Bible says by reading the NKJV or another faithful translation in their own vernacular. It is not necessary nor profitable for them to learn another language so the can read an older Bible that will render the exact same teachings and doctrines.

Quote:
If they can read and understand then the most definitely know more than when they could not read and understand.
I believe you left God out of your opinion, or is there only a few things God is able to do today?:smilewinkgrin:

If God were going to miraculously endow people with new language ability upon salvation then He probably would have given them the languages that HE chose to inspire the Bible into... not one that wasn't spoken nor understood until 1400 years later.

BTW, it isn't an opinion. It is a simple, common sense fact that you don't have to attend seminary or be an intellectual to understand. To deny the statement I made above is akin to denying the very definition of words.

 

[Scott J]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott J
"conversation, communicate, and let".

So tell me why you promote illiteracy by having a problem understanding those threee words?

I'm not. People aren't illiterate simply because the primary definitions of many words have shifted. These words all have understood meanings today. There are perfectly legitimate alternatives in modern understanding to replace those words... and absolutely no reason whatsoever not to substitute, ie: conversation=behavior, communicate=share, let=denied.

Quote:
Second, who made you or any other KJVO the authority to decide whether other people can understand the KJV sufficiently or not?
No one, and I am not trying to be anyone's authority, ever hear of making a false accusation?

Yes. And this isn't one. YOU have arbitrarily determined that people must be "educated" to understand KJV English because you have arbitrarily determined that is the only acceptable translation of the Bible... you are attempting to establish yourself and those who agree with you as the authority.

You have no basis in scripture. You have no call from God to do this... and there is no history to support your claims.

Quote:
Who made you all the authorities for determining when it is appropriate to produce an updated translation?
God. He gave us His Word w/o error already, why do you demand God be corrected?

God did not inspire the words of the KJV. Period.

The translators denied it and specifically allowed that there might be better words than the ones they chose.

They weren't qualified to receive inspiration and that is the ONLY way man can produce anything of absolute perfection. They weren't Apostles nor prophets... and all of them were born after God used John to pen the final inspired word.

Quote:
Frankly, you don't get to say whether the KJV differs enough or not. That is a matter of Christian liberty.
Christian liberty has to remain within the confines of the One who is the Authority over these matters. God has always held His Word above His very name, but there's your problem, you don't like that statement.

Nope. I don't like your vain assumption that God is on your leash. God never established the KJV as the only acceptable English translation. There is absolutely NO scripture that even hints at such a notion.

KJVOnlyism is very much a case of vain, pride-crippled men assuming authority that doesn't belong to them.

Quote:

:laugh: :laugh: So IOW's, when you say something that others disagree with for very good reason, they are guilty of loving to argue unless they shut up and let you "drool" whatever you want onto the pages of an open discussion board, right?
And for very good reason I stick with my drool and not as expected by others to get stuck in theirs. But who is agrueing, me? Not.

Nope. You on numerous occasions have attempted to blunt debate when you don't have answers for the arguments made against your opinion. It is pretty convenient to say "you just love to argue" when someone makes points you can't deal with.


Quote:
No you haven't. You've offered your opinion... and indirectly yourself as an authority for what others should believe.
Nope, I am under Authority to stay with God's Word.

Your arguements for an edition or version to meet the verbal usage of todays' English has nothing more than liberalism/ sinking sand, to stand on, or is it you don't believe God when He advises us to go back to the old paths?

 

[Keith M]

So tell me why you promote illiteracy by having a problem understanding those threee words?

Salamnder, no one is promoting illiteracy here. But you promote myth and error.

BTW you really need to stop accusing others of promoting illiteracy when you can't even spell arguing or argument. It's like the pot calling the kettle black - very hypocritical. :laugh:

I am under Authority to stay with God's Word.

As are we all. You slander those who stick with God's word and you blaspheme the very word of God unless it is in the KJV. So you and your type do more against the word of God than you do for it.

Your arguements for an edition or version to meet the verbal usage of todays' English has nothing more than liberalism/ sinking sand, to stand on, or is it you don't believe God when He advises us to go back to the old paths?

Salamander, you and other supporters of the KJVO myth would have the word of God available only to the "elite" who can understand outdated English. God doesn't want it that way - so why do you? God wants His word understandable and of easy access for each generation. Therefore He has preserved His word in various English Bible versions. Why do you belittle God's preserving work? And going back to the old paths doesn't refer to Bible versions - it refers to the values and mores of days gone by. And in days gone by people did not argue as you do - you deliberately promote falsehood when you have been shown the truth repeatedly.

If following God's will to spread the Gospel is liberalism, then I'll remain a liberal. Keeping God's word fresh and alive for every generation is important - yet you would keep it secret and hidden from those of modern times. How sad! You really need to start working for God and not against Him as you do now, Salamander. Give it a try and see how much more fullness you can have in your life.

Yes, God's word needs to be in time with current usage, not stuck in the darkness of the past as you and your type would have it!

 

[Scott J]

I love the way you people equate the Word of God with man's ability to increase in knowledge and manufacturing, and there it is: man "improving" on God's Word!:smilewinkgrin:

Man can never improve upon the Word of God.

However man must never be so proud and vain in ignorance as to assume that the communication of God's Word in a single translation is beyond improvement.

It isn't God's Word people are attempting to improve upon it is the rendering of it so that it is understood as much as possible as if one were being taught by the inspired prophets and Apostles themselves.

 

[Salamander]

But that's EXACTLY what the AV men did...because KJ didn't like the Geneva's footnotes, and the HUMAN Anglican clergy wanted one 'universal' version, appointed to be read in churches. Actually, they coulda done w/o the KJV for some 150 years, as the GB's English was current for the times. We coulda had a "King George Version" instead. The KJV came about because of a groupa men "correcting" and "improving" upon God's word. So, if ya don't believe we needed new versions in OUR generation, ya shouldn't believe that KJ & Co. needed a new version in THEIR time. They already had several versions in their style of English.

But why would you want a red door and paint it black?

The KJB has far withstood the test of time and is perfectly understandable for any English speaking people. You can "blame" your ideals about the translators and try your best to discount the Word of God all you want, but it still is the Best.

As far as I have seen, no one in the KJB translators "corrected" anything in the Word of God. Now if you had said they made clarification where the previous versions were misleading, then true.

The translators did their humble best to provide a Bible to be read and understood by all English speaking people, they have succeeded for 396 years and counting. Want proof?

 

[Salamander]

Salamander: //I edited the "vulgarity" of the wordings
you quoted with astericks.//

Well, at least you are a mentally honest KJVO
with integrity. You believe the words are more important
than the ideas. The KJV rendition of Isaiah 36:12 contains a vulgar word
(according to many dictionaries, a book which keeps track
of such stuff); the CSB = Christian Standard Bible
(Holman, 2003), does not use vulgar words for the
same concepts. It is the words which might be vulgar,
not the ideas. But true KJVOs must believe that
the words are what is important (or in this case, vulgar).
This leads to great contradicion,
for the original N.T. words were mostly Greek, not English;
the original O.T. words were mostly Hebrew, not English.

So you have expressed your congratulation of some dictionaries as having precedence over the Word of God, but there it is: your problem.

Actually, and in respect, (only) to BB rules, as you have ordered them, the KJB rendering is more accurate and less offensive considering the linguistical IMPACT. So your "arguement" is a bit crippled.

 

[Salamander]

Attacks against mainstream modern versions of the English Bible are against bulletin board rules. Therefore, if a person makes an attack with generalized statements regarding a translation's translators capability at translating Hebrew or Greek, or their command of the English language there is no difference because this points towards a weakened translation. Unwarranted and unproveable attacks against translators of mainstream modern English versions will therefore be edited by me just as quickly as an attack against the Bible they translated.

In other words, I will not tolerate statements indicating the translators of the NKJV were not capable people in the language they translated from or into. The NKJV is a great translation with background texts that many people here think are superior texts. Therefore, unless you know of something specific about a translator, keep your mouth shut about him or her.

You should resign your position for being so rash in judgement and the lack of Christian character for telling people to "keep their mouth shut" because of your bias. You are using your authority to dictate to others and without evidence as far as anyone can see, or have I missed something?

Yet you let others "attack" with a voracious appetite the KJ translators w/o the same regard.

 

[Salamander]

Again, how silly! In Job's day, no MAN could rise up & make a lotta other men not sure of their lives.

I suppose you forget about Goliaths? Or does the Word of God tell a "lie" in I Samuel 17?

IN RETROSPECT, JOB'S DAY IS THE SAME AS OUR DAY.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Salamander]

Salamander, you as well as most KJVO myth supporters, equate God with weakness. You don't think He has the power to preserve His word in various English translations. You think He is so weak that He can only preserve His word in one version. That is laughable blasphemy, Salamander. :laugh:

I know God has preserved His Word in many translations, but I have yet to find Him confused and still guessing what the Word of God says.

"Ok, let's see, which manuscripts I like best today?"

"Maybe I should reveal some more manuscripts that haven't yet been discovered to further my ability to preserve my Word?"

I haven't found the LORD of Hosts to ever be dismayed over versions, only men.:sleeping_2:

 

[Salamander]

Which is pretty much what KJVO's are attempting to do in a slightly more subtle way. The Vulgate-only crowd arbitrarily determined that Latin was the language of heaven... not dissimilar from KJVO claims about the wording and language of the KJV.

You must learn the differences between Christrians and catholics

From there they bullied, deceived uninformed/misinformed people into believing the Vulgate was the only God approved Bible. Sounds very familiar again. They took advantage of their fears of straying from the "true faith". Again a direct parallel. Ultimately, they told people that they weren't in the faith if they disagreed with LVO. Not all, but many, KJVO's imply or plainly state that anyone who isn't KJVO isn't saved.

"Hath God said" ought to sound familiar to you as well, then.

To the minor degree that is true, you are DEMANDING rather than promoting that people do something that is completely unnecessary.

So you think it's unnecessary to actually have an accurate translation that will stand the test of time and keep changing the Bible to meet the demands of society's ever-changing vocabulary no matter how vulgar and the amount of slang is attached to any word?

The Bible has been accurately translated into the language they know and use. Using your logic, we should just drop English altogether and demand that people learn the original languages.

I believe that would be one of your arguements. I know the English language is very precise in the kJB and cannot say that about any other version to date since the KJB

They can know what the Bible says by reading the NKJV or another faithful translation in their own vernacular. It is not necessary nor profitable for them to learn another language so the can read an older Bible that will render the exact same teachings and doctrines.

So you too believe God is wicked and evil in the context of Job 24.

It may be that you should look into the Hebrew and see where "el" "Elohim" or no ther Hebrew word is found in any manuscript to validate the NKJV rendering as "God" and is only conjecture that the person in context is actually "God" on the behalf of the NKJV translators.

If God were going to miraculously endow people with new language ability upon salvation then He probably would have given them the languages that HE chose to inspire the Bible into... not one that wasn't spoken nor understood until 1400 years later.

You have just one problem, the KJB is still definable and easily understood except to your disdain against the KJB.

BTW, it isn't an opinion. It is a simple, common sense fact that you don't have to attend seminary or be an intellectual to understand. To deny the statement I made above is akin to denying the very definition of words.

Touche' your OPINION demands the statement to be true. I know many men of God who never attended any seminary and understand the Bible well enough to convey the Word to a far greater understanding than you or me. They even use words like "ain't" and say thinmgs like "It be..."

You seem to hold a low esteem of men in general and like to leave God's ability to teach men through His Spirit.:tear:

 

[robycop3]

I suppose you forget about Goliaths? Or does the Word of God tell a "lie" in I Samuel 17?

IN RETROSPECT, JOB'S DAY IS THE SAME AS OUR DAY.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Please quit jumping from subject to subject...all you're doing is making yourself seem unsure of what you're talking about.

Only in our day with nukes can ONE MAN cause all others to be unsure of their lives, while GOD could/can do it any time.

Ever consider that there mighta been more than one person named Goliath? After all, lotsa people today are named after one of their parents or grandparents.

You're gonna hafta do a LOT better than you've done so far, Sal. Common sense calls for a new translation after so long, and reality shows they have been, and are being, made.

 

[robycop3]

Salamander:I know God has preserved His Word in many translations, but I have yet to find Him confused and still guessing what the Word of God says.[/i]

No, but YOU are. You're GUESSING He's preserved it in English ONLY in the KJV, a guess you cannot even BEGIN to justify. Didja ever consider guessing GOD isn't in your hatbox, and can preserve/provide/present His word however He jolly well chooses? Didja ever guess He wants His word to be read and understood by us, His creations, & therefore provides it in the languages He's chosen for us to use?

"Ok, let's see, which manuscripts I like best today?"

"Maybe I should reveal some more manuscripts that haven't yet been discovered to further my ability to preserve my Word?"

Most likely, "I have provided My word in the versions I caused to be made. I'll deal with those who choose to diss My word in versions they don't like in My good time. meanwhile, I'll see that those who REALLY CARE for My word have it in their best language."

I haven't found the LORD of Hosts to ever be dismayed over versions, only men.:sleeping_2:

No, the Lord has provided them AS HE CHOSE. It's MEN, especially KJVOs, who've thrown hissy fits over this or that version that doesn't meet their approval.

 

[Salamander]

I'm not. People aren't illiterate simply because the primary definitions of many words have shifted. These words all have understood meanings today. There are perfectly legitimate alternatives in modern understanding to replace those words... and absolutely no reason whatsoever not to substitute, ie: conversation=behavior, communicate=share, let=denied.

Please, quit denying the entire defintion to any word, the context defines any word, that is basic English. I know what has "shifted" and it's more akin to slithered.

Yes. And this isn't one. YOU have arbitrarily determined that people must be "educated" to understand KJV English because you have arbitrarily determined that is the only acceptable translation of the Bible... you are attempting to establish yourself and those who agree with you as the authority. [/quote[ I haven't arbitrated anything, I have only shown that even "uneducated" people still understand the KJB when they have a hard time reading many of the new versions because of the familiararity of the KJB verses the new fangled vernacular of the modernists

You have no basis in scripture. You have no call from God to do this... and there is no history to support your claims.
God did not inspire the words of the KJV. Period.

You're not God. Period. The last 396 years prove you otherwise.

The translators denied it and specifically allowed that there might be better words than the ones they chose.

They humbly admitted they did the best they could, knowing that some might do better, but no one has.

They weren't qualified to receive inspiration and that is the ONLY way man can produce anything of absolute perfection. They weren't Apostles nor prophets... and all of them were born after God used John to pen the final inspired word.
Nope. I don't like your vain assumption that God is on your leash. God never established the KJV as the only acceptable English translation. There is absolutely NO scripture that even hints at such a notion.

Ok, so who inspires you to say the things you do? Do yiou mean unless a man ONLY quotes directly from the Oeriginal languages he cannot be a spokesperson of God? Do you also mean that no one has the Word of God intatc due to the Originals not being able to be produced?

KJVOnlyism is very much a case of vain, pride-crippled men assuming authority that doesn't belong to them.

God has proven otherwise for the last 396 years.

Nope. You on numerous occasions have attempted to blunt debate when you don't have answers for the arguments made against your opinion. It is pretty convenient to say "you just love to argue" when someone makes points you can't deal with.

Which one? care to manufacture some "points'?



No you haven't. You've offered your opinion... and indirectly yourself as an authority for what others should believe.
Nope, I am under Authority to stay with God's Word.

Your arguements for an edition or version to meet the verbal usage of todays' English has nothing more than liberalism/ sinking sand, to stand on, or is it you don't believe God when He advises us to go back to the old paths?

 

[Salamander]

Please quit jumping from subject to subject...all you're doing is making yourself seem unsure of what you're talking about.

Only in our day with nukes can ONE MAN cause all others to be unsure of their lives, while GOD could/can do it any time.

Ever consider that there mighta been more than one person named Goliath? After all, lotsa people today are named after one of their parents or grandparents.

You're gonna hafta do a LOT better than you've done so far, Sal. Common sense calls for a new translation after so long, and reality shows they have been, and are being, made.

You're talking globally and not really in truth, I find it very hard to believ any radical moslem to fear dying for their idiotic cause at the onset of nuclear war. Maybe you should get back to the Bible and leave "World magazine" gymnastics out of the rational conversation?

The context in Job 24 is dealing specifically with the men that fall into the snare of the evil man, [snip]

 

[Ed Edwards]

In addition to the ad-homiinem logical error you make,
you do this wrong also:

//So you have expressed your congratulation of some dictionaries
as having precedence over the Word of God, but there it is: your problem.//

Tee Hee, you have to be kidding???
Humor will get you anywhere

However, there is a basic difference in assumptions.
You assume: It is the ideas which are vulgar; not the words.
I assume: It is the words which are vulgar; not the ideas.

The Bible speaks like i believe:

2 Cor 3:6 (KJV1611 Edition):
Who also hath made vs able ministers of the New Testament,
not of the letter, but of the spirit:
for the letter killeth, but the spirit giueth life.

"for the letter killeth, but the spirit giueth life"
or, in the terms I've discussed:
'for the word killeth, but the meaning giveth life'.


//Actually, and in respect, (only) to BB rules, as you have ordered them,
the KJB rendering is more accurate and less offensive considering
the linguistical IMPACT. So your "arguement" is a bit crippled.//

I didn't order the BB rules. I didn't make the BB rules. I keep
the BB rules, i don't make them.