Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism

Has anyone checked KJV 2000?
I tried to check it on line, but could not get it.
I hope someone comment on it in terms of the check list that I mentioned earlier.

 

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? I was of a Roman Cathollic background; for 20 years a devout Catholic. I had never the gospel once. The first time it was explained to me I got saved. If that same person had just quoted KJV verses to me I would no doubt still be unsaved today. BTW, much to your chagrin, he led me to the Lord using "Good News for Modern Man," the worst possible paraphrase (not worthy to be called a translation) possible. But it was God the Holy Spirit working through His Word nevertheless.

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?

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.

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 me to make a new translation? The Lord.

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.
DHK

 

I was saved while I was reading the bible similar to NIV, and was attending one of the denominations like Wesleyan. However, later on I realized that I have to participate in the fellowship taught by God, in the same manner as the early churches did. Also, I realized that KJV is better than any other versions available and God wants me to read it and learn from it.
If I read other bibles, I am not challenged so much as I get by KJV.
I believe that anyone can get saved while she or he read NIV or HCSB or NASV too, but better chances can be found in KJV, and KJV directs the life of the saved person. It is only the personal assumption that DHK might have not been saved if some had presented KJV at that time. Because it is the work of God, no one knows the result if the other way taken.
I wonder which Bible was taken when Carey went to India, but in our assemblies, throughout North America, I have seen the most of the preachers use KJV only. Even NKJV translators are so-called Plymouth Brethren, but we still trust KJV and use it as the most accurate Bible.

[ December 30, 2005, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]

 

My primary source is the Bible itself, although lexicons help.
In the Bible the word "pascha" is used 29 times. Every single time it is correctly translated "Passover." Why would it be mistranslated "Easter" referring to a pagan festival, when consistently it is always translated Passover. Even other translations translate it Passover. All the evidence is against the Easter translation.

The Bible makes two statements which are difficult for most people to reconcile:
...For as Jona was three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earht. {b]3 days and 3 nights

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, [n]and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

We also know from the gospels that third day was the first day of the week. The first day of the week was Sunday. Count backwards. Friday, Saturday, Sunday. Thus Christ had to die on Friday and rise on Sunday. Now how do you get 3 days and 3 nights inbetween those three days?
--I'll let you puzzle over that one.

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."

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:

Acts 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

A good percentage of the Jews had become hellenized (or Grecianized). That is, they had taken on the Greek culture and language. Many of them had even forgotten about the Hebrew language. Remember the Saducees. They were far more liberal than the orthodox Pharisee, and promoted the Greek language over the Hebrew language. Sometimes the Septuagint was even read in the synagogue. There is no evidence that Jesus did not use the Septuagint in a Greek speaking culture to reach the masses. After all the masses of people did not understand Hebrew.

The order didn't change in the Septuagint either. They were Jews who translated the Septuagint from Hebrew.

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.

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.

The differences for the most part are quite insignificant.

Of course, the NASV comes from the critical text. It is, in effect, a different Bible.

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.

You need to learn more of the Septuagint and what exactly what it is, and what it was used for.
DHK

 

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

 

Well, I'm a Baptist, I guess, considering I am a member, and the Moderator of a local Baptist church.

I'm also in a bit of a whimsical mood, early this AM (Needing :sleeping_2: :sleep: I suppose.).

I ran across this thread accidentally, when looking something else up, but it appears someone may have "picked the lock" before I arrived, for the door was still standing wide open, even after almost 3 1/2 years.

Would DHK or another Moderator like to try the and bit on this corpse one more time?

Heh! Heh! Heh! [Oh, if only we were to be able to enter 8 'smilies' or images per post, as one could do when I first arrived on the BB, I would have also entered a "'tongue stuck out' smilie" plus a couple of good laughing smilies. Sadly, one is now limited to 4 such images.

(Hey! I told you I was in a whimsical mood, at this present time! What would you expect??)]

Ed