Question for KJVOs"like me" can we translate from.....

Just read the link posted by C4K......If true (and I've no reason to believe it is not),the "Rey Jaime" rates right up there with the NWT in scholarly quality!
Or to say it another way..."you got to be kiddin' me".

 

Actually it more closely ranks right up there with the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith also misunderstood "fetched a compass" and took it literally.

 

Hi, C4K, I'm a little late getting on today. This has been a rough week.

I see we're discussing "the same ole' thing".

Hello, azguitarist, So you think that the KJV ought to be used as the standard for all new foreign translations? Is that what I'm reading in all of this?

I'll make this EASY for you, so that you don't have to type a lot--there are two versions, both are different one was translated in 1611 and the other was "shall we say --completed" in 1769 (the Oxford edition--The most used KJV today.)

You can type one of two letters, right?

Here it is. Type "A" if the absolutely word-for-word, Word Perfect version is the 1611 or type the letter "B" if you think it is the newer version completed in 1769?

With two choices and one letter to type.....we have now eliminated the problem with typing and maybe we can find out WHICH version you think is the Perfect-letter-for-letter version.

A. 1611

B. 1769

Your turn.

 

I second that.

 

Ah, yes all Spanish speakers can understand written Castillian, but there are words that are used in some countries that mean different things in another country. Just as their are different English dialects there are different Spanish dialects.

For instance, the word "pancho" in Mexico is the cape like garment that we usually think of, but in Argentina "pancho" is a hotdog on a bun.

 

One big difference. Here you have scriptural proof. The words of the prophet.

Where is the scriptural proof that the KJV Anglo-Catholic pado-baptists translators who persecuted and martyred our Baptist forefathers "restored" the Word of God and that in 17th century English?

HankD

 

It's ol'granny again...for the life of me, I do not know what the fuss is all about on most of these threads. The first time I ever heard the term KJV1611 thrown out there, I simply thought it was meant to distinquish the Holy Bible from all the other ones out there, even that one known as NEWkjv. To me, to say one uses the KJV1611 is to say one uses any or all of the kjBibles that was made from that time point on & it came from something just like it. Like begats like.

To ask "which one" is the same as me asking you "which one" of the MVs do YOU consider your faithful companion. Not many, if any, have ever answered. Just pick ONE, only ONE. What is it you use for your day by day walk with Jesus? What is it you use to know Him by? Can't you pick just one? I can. My straight-stick. One Bible. One God. Hasn't failed me in all these 50+ yrs. Never failed those before me either.

Noone EVER asked them "Which One"...it was unheard of. Everybody used the SAME one...from the homes to the churches to the schools to the courthouses. One Bible. Which one. There's your answer. Like another brother said on here, I use the Bible that's on my desk, etc. and I even have one in the 'necessary room'...and they all line up, gun-barrel straight.

 

I was stationed in Korea years ago, and the professors had problems with the translation of their words into Korean. One mentioned that he'd have the Korean translated back into English to see some of the errors, but even that was not perfect.

I can't believe some think there aren't errors that creep in when you translate from language to language, and maintain archaic language over time.

 

--At Mark 2:23, the KJV mentions the picking of "corn" on the Sabbath. In 1611 British English, "corn" meant "grain" (of whatever sort, but usually wheat, rye or barley), not specifically what we in America today call "corn" (think "Iowa in July"). As Americans who misunderstood the KJV's use of "corn" as though it was the 20th century American meaning of the word, the Rey Jaime translators give "maiz" ("corn," that is Indian corn; the Latin name being Zea mays). What is especially egregious about this mistranslation based on personal ignorance is that they have introduced into their version what is an actual historical error. You see, what we Americans call "corn" is a native American plant and was completely unknown in the Old World in general, and in Palestine in particular, until some while after A.D. 1492 when Columbus made his first voyage to the New World. To insert this plant into a first-century Palestine narrative is as much a historical error as if we found Paul driving to Damascus in a Chevy or Peter watching "The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather" on TV while on the rooftop of the house in Joppa.

ROFLOL!!!

 

You are right! To ask "which one" of the KJV editions is the same thing as "which one" of the MVs. With that admission, KJVO-ism cannot stand.

Each MV has differences from one another, as do each KJV edition. Substantial differences. To say my final authority is "the KJV" is just like saying my final authority is "the MVs." Neither the KJV nor the MVs are a single translation; they are pools of different translations. If you can refer to an entire pool of translations as being the Word of God, despite their differences, then KJVO fails.

That's the whole point. Not only is KJVO-ism not reality consistent, it's not even internally consistent.

 

My daddy went to Korea twice in the '50s...he took with him the same Bible I use today... No one had any problems with it. God is the same God today as He was back then. It's wonderful to have only trusted ONE Bible all these years. It was wonderful for my kith and kin to use the SAME one all their years. That is purity...just like God is.

I've been straight on my thinking ever since I've been saved & I owe it all to that ONE Bible...nothing more, nothing less. Man invented this "ism"...man is mistaken. God is not. I can be absolutely sure that when I open my ONE Bible that is the pure Word of God as He spoke it. It is HIM alone I hear when I read HIS only words.

 

Me too Granny. I can read His words just the way He spoke them in Greek and Hebrew.

Also in 1611 Granny when many saints some of which were our baptist brethren were persecuted and even martyred because the resisted the new Bible King James "authorised" preferring the Geneva over the KJV.

HankD

[ March 03, 2005, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Well, I can't, Hank. I only know Him by the only Book I've ever used...the same one my folks used & theirs before them, etc...and it wasn't in Greek or Hebrew.

 

I understand Granny and I can rejoice with you because your faith is pure and is that of a little child.

I just wanted you to know that there are some of us who have the same testimony from the Bible in its original languages.

HankD

 

Original question. ANSWER: No ... your question is FAULTY.

You are thinking like an American from north of the Rio Bravo ...

Whenever you translate from one language into another, you loose some of the intent from the original semantic domain as you attempt to find equivelance in the semantic domain of the second language.

Unless you can use true cognates ... Mamma is Mamá.

But, when we use the cognates "You are embarassed" and "Estás embarazada" ...

Are you really?

 

When my wife and I went on a mission trip to Colima, Mexico, we got a taste of how languages do not translate exactly.

Part of the trip was holding a lay revival. One of the guys on the trip gave his testimony, and our guide interpreted. Part of his testimony was about growing up in the "projects". Of course everyone in America knows what the "projects" are. But our interpreter had to stop the guy, and take three or four minutes to communicate the concept of government-provided housing to the congregation.

How does this apply? One, the two languages are different. Two, what is common knowledge for one language group/speakers is not necessarily common knowledge for the other. Three, idioms, as a rule, do not translate.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Like I should have said on the original languages ...

two languages are double trouble ...

 

PS

I really hope that az_mex is not "embarazada". That would be an exceptional coincidence ...

 

wow. i go to sleep, wake up and lo and behold, this thread has grown to 14 pages! I'll pick up from around pg 4 or 5 where my name was bounced around abit...

C4K is right when he said this on pg 5: If Su Wei is KJVo then it would tend to affect her view of translational issues, as any of our backgrounds always affects our views.

(btw, I am KVJo. not the ruckman kind.)
KJVos have so much confidence that God preserved His Word so perfectly in 1611, using a godly, scholarly group of men (the greatest talents of their day) to translate His Word from the RT. That God in His foreknowledge knew that English would become such a dominant and powerful language (above greek and hebrew) in the world in the "ages" to come, He preserved it perfectly in the KJV (drawing from the strengths of the preceding english bibles that were around for James' teams to consult.) English is the language spoken by the most powerful groups of people in this day. I guess i don't have to elaborate more on that...

We can safely use the KJV to translate to a third language because we can trust the accuracy and consistency of the KJV. That's the faith KJVos have in the KJV that we are not doing the Word of God injustice, or the peoples who are receiving the bible in their own tongue.

I dudn't say that there's not the need for "helps", as even the King James scholars had. And as in the instance of that example that was pointed out by manchesterabout the corn on pg 13, that's just slip shod translation work. not enough study put into it.