-
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!
Regarding the King James Bible
- Thread starter Elk
- Start date
USN2Pulpit
New Member
Tell about it, if you're willing.
BTW, I also believe the KJV is precious to the Lord. It is, after all, the Word of God. Did your encounter lead you to believe it was the only Word of God?
Thank you all for the replies.
This encounter that I experienced was not about other Bibles.
Also, I do not believe that it was about KJ only.
And to answer the question in the above message...
God way back when HE made other languages, did not leave other people out who speak other languages...so how can God only make a Bible for the English speaking people and make lame ones for the rest. Does that make any sense?
Consider Martin Luther...did he make his translation in English? He was German.
Oh, and I own one of those (from Ebay) quite old but not that old (grin). I can read a little German.
Finally, and it is so sad, but if I were to say what I experienced (as far as my encounter with the Lord about that), I know many here would be offended because they do not believe that the Lord performs miracles or gives visions or dreams or revelations or encounters today.
This encounter that I experienced was not about other Bibles.
Also, I do not believe that it was about KJ only.
And to answer the question in the above message...
God way back when HE made other languages, did not leave other people out who speak other languages...so how can God only make a Bible for the English speaking people and make lame ones for the rest. Does that make any sense?
Consider Martin Luther...did he make his translation in English? He was German.
Oh, and I own one of those (from Ebay) quite old but not that old (grin). I can read a little German.
Finally, and it is so sad, but if I were to say what I experienced (as far as my encounter with the Lord about that), I know many here would be offended because they do not believe that the Lord performs miracles or gives visions or dreams or revelations or encounters today.
By whose council is any translation validated?
Job speaks of those who darken counsel. Sounds like a very sticky matter to me, I'm glad I got "anchored" many, many years ago.
BTW, you haven't answered my PM, for that matter, opened it either.
On the question can the King James be accuratelt translated into other languages? Just as accurately as any type of literature can, even the NY Times.
Oh, God! here come the attacks!
I claim:
Psalms 18:2 The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.
Psalms 18:30 As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.
Psalms 35:2 Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for mine help.
Psalms 91:4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
Proverbs 2:7 He layeth up sound wisdom for the righteous: he is a buckler to them that walk uprightly.
But then experience says:
Jeremiah 46:3 Order ye the buckler and shield, and draw near to battle.
Then:
Ezekiel 23:24 And they shall come against thee with chariots, wagons, and wheels, and with an assembly of people, which shall set against thee buckler and shield and helmet round about: and I will set judgment before them, and they shall judge thee according to their judgments.
But let wisdom have her perfect work:
Ezekiel 26:8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.
Now, whose on who's side? just something to ponder.
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
It is the PRODUCT they produced that I'm concerned about;and that product they produced has ALSO been the concern of the "scholars union" for nearly 400 years..
Pastor KevinR
New Member
It is the PRODUCT they produced that I'm concerned about;and that product they produced has ALSO been the concern of the "scholars union" for nearly 400 years.. </font>[/QUOTE]...and the AV too was a product of primarily Anglican scholars.
Hey Ramson, just kidding around, but since you are Canadian, and us the NASB, why don't you use a New Canadian Standard Bible?
I know it doesn't exist! Does "American" in the NASB refer to North Americans? 
By whose council is any translation validated?
By those who can read both the translation and its sources.
Job speaks of those who darken counsel.
Yup! Today, they're called. "believers of false doctrines", such as KJVO.
Sounds like a very sticky matter to me, I'm glad I got "anchored" many, many years ago.
Sure you're not pivoting on your anchor chain?
BTW, you haven't answered my PM, for that matter, opened it either.
Well, I DO have a life away from keyboards. But before I posted this, I read your PM. Typical KJVO ad-hominem attack, quite amateurish.(ROFL)
On the question can the King James be accuratelt translated into other languages? Just as accurately as any type of literature can, even the NY Times.
But it seems rather pointless to re-translate a translation when the sources of the first translation are available.
Oh, God! here come the attacks!
Shoot, and expect to draw return fire.
By those who can read both the translation and its sources.
Job speaks of those who darken counsel.
Yup! Today, they're called. "believers of false doctrines", such as KJVO.
Sounds like a very sticky matter to me, I'm glad I got "anchored" many, many years ago.
Sure you're not pivoting on your anchor chain?
BTW, you haven't answered my PM, for that matter, opened it either.
Well, I DO have a life away from keyboards. But before I posted this, I read your PM. Typical KJVO ad-hominem attack, quite amateurish.(ROFL)
On the question can the King James be accuratelt translated into other languages? Just as accurately as any type of literature can, even the NY Times.
But it seems rather pointless to re-translate a translation when the sources of the first translation are available.
Oh, God! here come the attacks!
Shoot, and expect to draw return fire.
Only one to two percent of those during the NT times could even read, In other places it may have been as high as ten percent but that is doubtful. They encountered God in a supernatural way without ever being able to read a manuscript. They had faith in God. God doesn't need your Bible. You do.
Heb. 11:6, "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
Dear QuickeningSpirit,
Greetings.
By King James, do you mean Textus Receptus? Or by literally translating it from the English translation?
One problem that is obvious, is what is the end result of the translations, no matter what the foundation is...those who do loose translations or those who do very close translations...this will always be the problem, yes?
Furthermore, for example, I understand that the Greek dictionary is quite a bit bigger than the English, what I mean for example is like the word "love", in the Greek there are various words for love, such as agape, etc. In English we just have "Love". On the other hand, in the Greek, the same word for woman or wife is the same Greek word. But overall, I understand that there are more Greek words versus English words.
Thereby...wouldn't it make more sense to translate from Greek than English?
Lastly, I think the whole conflict that everyone is an uproar about...are the liberties that have been taken in translating the Greek, no matter what actual Greek text was used, yes? Is that not right? Or are we complaining about some of the compiled Greek texts? Perhaps, but when I look at my computer program of the Nestle versus the Textus Receptus, I find that they are so close, with the exception overall that they treat the "inserted words" differently, and that is basically the use of the Strong's word or not.
But obviously there are variances as well.
For example, people refer to the KJ as a fuller Bible. Some people believe it is by accidental parallel copying, such as the use of "firstborn" appearing in the Gospels more than the other Greek Texts.
Yet, others believe that some of these fuller variances were by actual Greek texts that may no longer exist. I tend to believe that that is very possible because of the heavy persecutions and burning of Bibles that have taken place in early Christian times, let alone what came later after Tyndale and Martin Luther started translating, etc.
As for me, I can see where there is more text and actually prefer it...rather than have it removed all together, especially like John 3:13.
A mystery fragment, but one that was there at one time or another. When it is omitted, I feel like I have been robbed, don't you?
I think one of the most curious things however in various translations and the King James is one of them, is the inserted words that are in "italics". Praise the Lord for the use of italics, but how often (no matter what translation) when one reads it "without" reading the italics, the meaning is often different!
Why those italics are stuffed in there, makes me wonder. But nonetheless, Praise the Lord for the grace to see what is actually there or not by the use of italics.
Well, am I wordy or what? Grin.
Have a great day in Jesus.
Greetings.
By King James, do you mean Textus Receptus? Or by literally translating it from the English translation?
One problem that is obvious, is what is the end result of the translations, no matter what the foundation is...those who do loose translations or those who do very close translations...this will always be the problem, yes?
Furthermore, for example, I understand that the Greek dictionary is quite a bit bigger than the English, what I mean for example is like the word "love", in the Greek there are various words for love, such as agape, etc. In English we just have "Love". On the other hand, in the Greek, the same word for woman or wife is the same Greek word. But overall, I understand that there are more Greek words versus English words.
Thereby...wouldn't it make more sense to translate from Greek than English?
Lastly, I think the whole conflict that everyone is an uproar about...are the liberties that have been taken in translating the Greek, no matter what actual Greek text was used, yes? Is that not right? Or are we complaining about some of the compiled Greek texts? Perhaps, but when I look at my computer program of the Nestle versus the Textus Receptus, I find that they are so close, with the exception overall that they treat the "inserted words" differently, and that is basically the use of the Strong's word or not.
But obviously there are variances as well.
For example, people refer to the KJ as a fuller Bible. Some people believe it is by accidental parallel copying, such as the use of "firstborn" appearing in the Gospels more than the other Greek Texts.
Yet, others believe that some of these fuller variances were by actual Greek texts that may no longer exist. I tend to believe that that is very possible because of the heavy persecutions and burning of Bibles that have taken place in early Christian times, let alone what came later after Tyndale and Martin Luther started translating, etc.
As for me, I can see where there is more text and actually prefer it...rather than have it removed all together, especially like John 3:13.
A mystery fragment, but one that was there at one time or another. When it is omitted, I feel like I have been robbed, don't you?
I think one of the most curious things however in various translations and the King James is one of them, is the inserted words that are in "italics". Praise the Lord for the use of italics, but how often (no matter what translation) when one reads it "without" reading the italics, the meaning is often different!
Why those italics are stuffed in there, makes me wonder. But nonetheless, Praise the Lord for the grace to see what is actually there or not by the use of italics.
Well, am I wordy or what? Grin.
Have a great day in Jesus.
Only one to two percent of those during the NT times could even read, In other places it may have been as high as ten percent but that is doubtful. They encountered God in a supernatural way without ever being able to read a manuscript. They had faith in God. God doesn't need your Bible. You do.
Heb. 11:6, "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, but HE watches out for HIS WORD, does HE not?
Last night, I dug out these older tapes I have of Jim Bakker being interviewed (after "I Was Wrong"), and he was asked, "How does one get to know God?"
His answer, read the WORD.
Anti-Alexandrian
Member
Oh really??? Can you show the exact verse where Job speaks of "KJVO"? If not,you have falsley represented what the Bible(KJB)says;the same thing you blather on about concerning Bible(KJB) believers...
Why the double standard???
See? I ask a simple question and all these "typical"? Christians attack me and the King James. You're not changing me, or the Word of God for that matter.
All you "typicals" are doing is setting the "concrete" that much harder. The more you argue the more I see you in the Philistine camp!
There is a verse: 1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Oh, I don't need Greek to tell what English means in English, I do have a dictionary, maybe you could get one relevant enough to give root meanings and you wouldn't have to waste so much time studying ancient Greek that N
NE uses! Or be misled by it for that matter.
If it really means so much to you, then find the Original Greek, translate it into English, and see that it reads the same in the KJB. But first you'll have to do it from the KJB, or it's predecessors. (Alexandrian texts are not KJB predecessors, or didn't Westcott and Hort tell you that?)
When Samson fell for Delilah/Alexandrian texts, he was found sporting before the Philistines in the devil's grinding mill, going round and round, round and round. (That's all I see the mv crowd doing today: round and round, round and round) Then came the time he reached up and found his hair had grown back/KJB, pushed the two pillars aside and destroyed the Philistines once more.
Now, reckon this analogy has any relevance to today and mv's? Better get back to the Holy Bible/ King James Bible, Samson!
All you "typicals" are doing is setting the "concrete" that much harder. The more you argue the more I see you in the Philistine camp!
There is a verse: 1 Corinthians 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
Oh, I don't need Greek to tell what English means in English, I do have a dictionary, maybe you could get one relevant enough to give root meanings and you wouldn't have to waste so much time studying ancient Greek that N
NE uses! Or be misled by it for that matter.If it really means so much to you, then find the Original Greek, translate it into English, and see that it reads the same in the KJB. But first you'll have to do it from the KJB, or it's predecessors. (Alexandrian texts are not KJB predecessors, or didn't Westcott and Hort tell you that?)
When Samson fell for Delilah/Alexandrian texts, he was found sporting before the Philistines in the devil's grinding mill, going round and round, round and round. (That's all I see the mv crowd doing today: round and round, round and round) Then came the time he reached up and found his hair had grown back/KJB, pushed the two pillars aside and destroyed the Philistines once more.
Now, reckon this analogy has any relevance to today and mv's? Better get back to the Holy Bible/ King James Bible, Samson!
QS - are you saying that the King James (whichever revision you believe is correct) is the final authority? That would make you a #5 KJVO and I wasn't sure that there were any that radical on the BB.
Will let YOU state exactly what you mean. BTW, we "typical" Christians attack KJVO with a vengeance, just like we do any false teaching. Appreciate your compliment.
"Radical" only by "liberal" standards.
#5 by the standard set forth the "Doc".
BUT! by God's standards: Settled. Stedfast. Sure.SAVED! Secure.
I'm not still wondering what the Word of God is.
To answer you,Doc, would be "redundant", even a 12 year old with basic English skills could tell you where I stand, and that without having to re-translate it.
-
#5 by the standard set forth the "Doc".
BUT! by God's standards: Settled. Stedfast. Sure.SAVED! Secure.
I'm not still wondering what the Word of God is.
To answer you,Doc, would be "redundant", even a 12 year old with basic English skills could tell you where I stand, and that without having to re-translate it.
I know, but your theology in the above quote is heresy: "Vengence is mine thus saith the LORD; I will repay"
So taking vengence according to what you think is not Biblical. God hasn't taken vengence against the KJB or it's believers, and won't for that matter, it's not under the "curse". This one brought them out of their lairs before: Psalm 12:6,7
BTW, how do you mv's get "words" to mean people?
Oh, I understand the context preceding is all about people, but then the Words that give life to the poor and the needy are set forth as The Standard, pure Words, not people mind you.