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!
Originally posted by WordOfAKing:
Originaly posted by DHK
I have already asked this question (challenge) two or three times, and each time it goes unanswered. (I wonder why)
I will ask again:
If I translate (from the Greek TR) John chapter one (and I believe I can) into English, will it be just as "inspired" as the KJV? why or why not?
Certainly, he does all the time. As I mentioned to Ray, I just finished preaching throught the Book of First Corinthians and ended up with a commentary of over 600 pages. In every verse I went back to the Greek. Verse by verse. Without doing so I wouldn't get the proper sense of the passage would I. There were many passages in the KJV where the translation failed miserably to accurately translate the Greek. Exposition was needed to clear up the passage. That is precisely the duty of a preacher. Is it not your duty as well to expound on the gospel when you witness to someone. Or do you just stand there quoting KJV verses never attempting to explain what they mean to the unsaved?It depends. First off, did God lead you to translate it into English?
This is your mistaken assumption. There is no perfection in the KJV. I can translate portions of the Bible, not the entire Bible, but portions of it. I have to in order to give a just rendering of the passage to my congregation. Thus it is I that comes close, as close as possible to perfection, that is possible, not the KJV. How do you account for the KJV translators admitting that their translation was not perfect, and indeed could be improved upon?After all, why try to improve on perfection?
Common sense. I work with immigrants, and those whose mother tongue is not English. They never learned English as their mother tongue. English is difficult for them. As I mentoned already, the NKJV is translated from the Received Text and is juust as good as the KJV, except that words such as workedth is translated as works, or and letteth as lets, etc. The OK "prevent" would be given its updated meaning "precede." These are obvious English updates.Who told you the King James needed updating? Scholars, scribes, those that reject the word of God first, then base thier theology upon that premise. The King James translators had an indirect mandate from God to make thier translation.
pratel--Do you mean "prattle" or "Pray tell?" Perhaps you need a lesson in English, much less the "King's English." Would you like a copy of the NKJV?Who told you to make a new translation in English? A king? A magistrate? Someone else in a position of power? Who, pratell?
The king had nothing to do with it. He was an unsaved wretch of a man. He was just as ungodly as any other man. Your reasoning is totally unjustified. The verses you quoted have nothing to do with a translation. Any one can make a translation. If Adoniram Judson had never gone to Burma, the Burmese would never have a Bible today. If William Carey had never gone to India there would not be any Bible for many of the tribes of India. It doesn't really matter what manuscripts these men used. What matters is that they gave the Word of God into the hands of the people of these respective nations that they might have the truth, and many others might be saved as a result of it. That is something you have never even aspired to, isn't it. Don't say you can't do it. Carey was but a cobbler with no formal training.So, to answer your question, if you translated John chapter 1, into English, it would not be as (preserved) as the King James, because a king didn't tell you to translate it (Prov. 21:1). Unless of course you translated exactly like it reads in the King James. That would be alright. Then you would just be proving the point that the King James didn't need updating in the first place!
Originally posted by Eliyahu:
DHK said,[/B
Pascha means passover.
Where did you get this from?
Do you trust that source, while you don't trust KJV? It is up to you.
The Bible makes two statements which are difficult for most people to reconcile:Where did you get the statement that Jesus died on Friday and resurrected on Sunday?
I believe it is a nonsense without knowing the difference between High Sabbath and regular sabbath.
Good. This would be a good example to use then. Take the Chinese Bible, if you know Chinese well. And I am sure that you would find many discrepancies as you translate the Chinese back into English between the the KJV and the Chinese. I am sure you would never find the word Easter for example in it. You would probably not find the word unicorn in it either. So one or the other is wrong. The KJV is wrong in a number of areas. Both can't be correct. The fact is that no translation is infallible or inspired. The Scriptures are preserved in the Greek. That is why both the English and the Chinese are translated from the Hebrew and the Greek, and the Chinese is not translated from the KJV, for the KJV is not inspired. It is the Hebrew and the Greek that has the Word of God preserved in it. Is this beginning to make sense now? There is no perfect translation. I go to a mid-eastern nation regularly where I can speak the language. However, in preaching the message is still translated. Often I have to stop the translator, and tell him that what he has just interpreted (translated) is not correct. Translation is difficult. In some languages some words are not translatable. They need a phrase, not a word. The need an explanation. It is almost impossible to translate some things word for word. Meaning is lost in translation. That became evident in Phil.3:20 with the word "conversation" when it should have been translated "citizenship."I have noticed Egyptian Coptic Orthodox has the right Bible based on TR/Masoretic OT and one of Modern Greek Bibles seems to be based on TR too.
One minor Chinese (not the main Bible of Chinese) is based on TR/MT too.
Your post is full of assumptions and no proof. First the entire New Testament was written in Greek. There are many quotations that are taken word for word from the Greek Septuagint. I doubt if it is a coincidence. Furthermore look at what it says in Acts 6:There is no confirmation that Septuagynt was used by Yeshuah. He mentioned Yod and Title shall not fall away from the Torah. There is no Yod and Title in Greek but in Hebrew. He spoke to Paul in Hebrew. The sign at Cross had the Hebrew inscription too. Jews hated Greek very much as they eat pork meat, full of idolatory in their language, full of myths.
The order didn't change in the Septuagint either. They were Jews who translated the Septuagint from Hebrew.Jesus(Yeshuah) mentioned the Bible in the order of Torah, Neviim, Ketuviim which is exactly the order of Masorah, not Septuagynt.
He also mentioned the last Martyr, Zechariah, because he was mentioned in the last book of OT, which means Chronicles. Septuagynt had different order.
Get it through your head! This was a Hebrew work. It was not a Gentile book. It was written and translated by the Jews. It was a Jewish translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek, and that is all.Some verses look like the quotation from LXX, but Dead Sea Scroll implies that there might have existed another type Masorah in Hebrew. One from Palestinian or from Egypt the other from Babylonian.
Yes, that is like saying you will find a lot of discepancy between the KJV and the Greek. You lose meaning in translation. We know that. That is why no translation is inspired which includes both the Septuagint and the KJV.If you ever tried to translate OT from any Hebrew texts you would find the discrepancy quite a lot between Hebrew text and LXX, and that LXX was not the Word-to-Word translation.
The differences for the most part are quite insignificant.In other thread, titled Who translated NKJV, I mentioned many differences between KJV and NKJV.
Some of them I can illustrate now:
Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27
1 Corinthian 1:21 ( Message is foolish or Method of preaching looks foolish?)
1John 5:13
1 KIng 14:24 ( Sodomites vs Perverted Persons)
Genesis 37:28 ( Joseph was pulled by Midianites or by his brethren)
Of course, the NASV comes from the critical text. It is, in effect, a different Bible.I also mentioned some problems with NASV in the other thread called:
NASV is more accurate than KJV?
No Bible was influenced by the Septuagint. The Bible was not translated from the Septuaging. You are badly misinformed. The Bible is translated from the masoretic Hebrew text and either the Greek critical text (mv's) or the Greek majority text (KJV). The Septuagint has nothing to do with it.Even though you say that they were not influenced by Septuagynt, please look at Daniel 9:26 - Messiah will be cut off but not for himself (but for us) vs Messiah will be cut off and have nothing.(HCSB)
You need to learn more of the Septuagint and what exactly what it is, and what it was used for.The more discusion reveals the limit of your knowledge, I think, since I had thought you know very much, in the beginning of the debate.
Well, I'm a Baptist, I guess, considering I am a member, and the Moderator of a local Baptist church.I would prefer this discussion be confined to the versions forum. Since this has reached a 21 page limit I am now closing it. If most or all of you are baptist, please continue it in the versions forum where it belongs. Thank you.
DHK