so there may be unicorns, but Cockatrices?

[HankD]

My Alexandrian cult membership card

Does it come with an Text Aparatus Decoder Ring?

HankD

 

[Gunther]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:
i suppose i grant jesus a little more authority than the nkjv translation comittee.

Now Jesus in on the translating committee for the KJV?

Good one. I almost thought you were serious.

 

[Gunther]

BrianT, I didn't see the ESV on your card. It must truly be a cult.

Btw, that card is funnier than the arguments of the KJVOs.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Oooh! Oooh! I wanna join! Can I have a membership card?

Joshua

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
Oooh! Oooh! I wanna join! Can I have a membership card?

Ask, and it shall be given you.

Click here

 

[Gunther]

I want one also. I don't have a picture though. Perhaps you could use the evil cult sign of the NKJV?

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Funny,funny stuff!!(Proverbs 17:22) But the joke IS on you.But I will give y'all this much,your honest.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by timothy 1769:


i don't see that at all. if bob points at something and says "automobile" and fred points at the same thing and says "truck" both can be right. there is no error in the kjv here.

I would almost be willing to accept your analogy... but you aren't consistent with it. Following your example, if Jim (an MV) then pointed and said "car" and Bob(the KJV) said "car with spoiler", you would condemn Jim for giving a corrupt account... even if Jim in an earlier conversation had already said it was a "car with spoiler."

In short, if you apply your reasoning consistently you will stop condemning MV's.

i suppose i grant jesus a little more authority than the nkjv translation comittee.

You seem like a pretty good fella and are very civil with your tactics. With that in mind, I will simply ask you to clarify what you meant here. Was it strictly a joke? If so, I really would appreciate a real answer rather than evasion.

i'm not for archaic words in the kjv, but i doubt our ability to update them without putting in more problems than we remove.

The same type arguments were used against the KJV when it first came out. Folks like us clung to the Geneva Bible until the Anglicans outlawed them so as to force universal acceptance of the Authorized Version.

imo people are so wraped up in their modern day isms they have a hard time seeing what the bible really says.

The problem with that statement is that you have more in common theologically with these "modernists" that you condemn than with the KJV translators which you extol. Consider folks like Spurgeon, Moody, Murray, Torrey, etc... or more recently, Rice, MacArthur, Ryrie, Swindoll, Rogers, etc... They would all be very similar to you in essential doctrine except for KJVOnlyism. The Anglicans agreed with you, albeit for different reasons, and enforced KJVOnlyism at the point of a bayonet.

in any event, it's not that big of a problem. my 11 year daughter knows most of the archaic words already.

More accurately, it is not a problem for kids that grow up in the right home and right church. But it frequently is a problem for folks who weren't so fortunate. OTOH, I know people who have gone to KJV churches their whole lives and don't read their Bibles because they cannot understand the language and are ashamed (or downright afraid) to admit it.

So in other words, the KJV was perfect when translated but now has to be translated to be understood? ...

[qb]yes. but by that standard, a perfect translation (or original inspiration!) would be impossible.

That's my point. A perfect translation is impossible because translations are not directly inspired by God.

let's say we had the autographs. by your standard they would shortly become flawed documents as they were written in living languages.

A different standard applies to the originals. The Bible itself declares that they are inspired by God.

no, but since i try to be honest and take water from a pure stream, i feel comfortable watering me and my family with it

Good... but why would you condemn someone who feels the same about an MV?

i think that with an older dictionary and strong's one can get a very good indication of what the translators intended, but no it's not an inerrant process, afaik.

Why would I trust sin tainted dictionaries, concordances, or interpretations, all very modernistic concepts... but not an MV? Interpretations are modernistic philosophically. Prior to the rise of modernism, interpretations came down from the hierarchy of the state-church. Individual interpretations of the scriptures was an heresy.

there's less room to really mess things up, i don't think they are really comparable. we have no choice but to try and interpret what the kjv means, especially where the words are archaic. i distrust modern scholarship, especially textual criticism that does not take god into account and treats the holy bible like just any other book.

I sincerely believe you overwhelmingly overestimate the KJV translators and vastly underestimate some of the modern translators. The NASB translators for instance were required to sign a doctrinal statement including the method of salvation we agree with. The Anglicans who translated the KJV persecuted Baptists and others for among other things... believing in the method of salvation we espouse.

i distrust modern translation comittees because we live in an age of apostasy, where everyone seems to want to be nicer than god, with "nice" defined by modern sensibilities.

Then why would you trust the KJV translation committee that was most definitely apostate by biblical standards? They lived in a period where all of the state-churches wanted to claim divine authority on earth but rather than being "nicer than God" they were frequently as cruel as the Devil.

i think providential preservation is the answer.

As do I, which virtually precludes a perfectly worded translation. Providential preservation uses even the flawed words of sinful men to preserve completely and clearly the message God gave inerrantly at the start.

the kjv, and the traditional texts it is based on,

How about the places where the KJV deviates from the traditional texts? I think I listed some in this thread earlier. If not, I will be glad to give them to you.

have been used greatly by god, and i trust them.

Many things have been greatly used by God. I agree that this is a reason to honor the KJV but it falls well short of a proof for it being God's only perfect Word in English.

i think the burden of proof for any changes rests squarely on the shoulders of the advocates of the critical text, and that they have never met it.

I disagree. They have met it in several cases, such as I John 5:7-8. There are a few places where the evidence is so strongly stacked against the KJV/TR as opposed to the majority and critical texts that there is no factual basis for denying a flaw.

the wide acceptance of the critical text has more to do with the infection of modern christian minds with a godless rationalism and worhsip of science (so-called) than with anything else imo.

Modernism takes the pursuit of objective proof for truth to illegitimate extremes while post-modernism denies that any pursuit is legitimate. The Bible teaches both proving thing intellectually and believing things by faith... and makes them complimentary, not contradictory. Denying objective truth does not make KJVOism more spiritual. There are those who have taken biblical criticism to extremes and there are those who have denied all pursuit of the truth concerning the biblical texts. Both extremes are equally unscriptural.

granted there are some archaic words in the kjv, but it's nothing like trying to read a dead language

It is for some.

your argument may be valid in another 1000 years or so

... or you may be a man 1000 years behind your time (in language).

i doubt the common man could really follow the book of hebrews, regardless of translation, without a decent biblical education.

They did when they were read to them publicly. OTOH, they went through a priest. We have the priesthood of the believer.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Gunther:
I want one also. I don't have a picture though. Perhaps you could use the evil cult sign of the NKJV?

Done. Welcome to the club.

Click here[/u]

If anyone else wants one, let me know here or drop me an email with your pic.

 

[HankD]

granted there are some archaic words in the kjv, but it's nothing like trying to read a dead language

Hmm, that's true but equally as important:

Why complain about the MV's which leave out words and phrases, etc, when the KJV does the same by losing words and phrases to the passage of time?

Example:

2 Corinthians 6
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Woohoo! Thanks Brian. I'm going to send it to some SBL Colleagues who'll get a big kick out of it. In fact, if you want to e-mail me the template, I can fiddle with it and make some cards that are hand-tailored to versions they've worked on.

Neat-o!

Thanks.

Joshua

 

[just-want-peace]

My name should answer the question?!

Just to clarify: I used to say that I wanted a plot of land big enough so that if I built a 2 story house, stood on the pinnacle of the roof with a 30-06 & shot in any direction, there was no possibility of hitting another human unless they were trespassing!

Never stopped to figure what the acreage would be, but don't really care about OWNING that much, just be that insulated.

I remember in early 60's coming back from Sandia Base in New Mexico, I came through some small town(!!?) in, I think Arkansas, that had a sign "ENTERING SMITHVILLE(?)". Looked to the right, the left,& saw zilch except one lonely farmhouse about a half mile off the road. After a couple of miles or so, I saw the sign from the other direction; "ENTERING SMITHVILLE"! Now that's what I call a small town.

 

[just-want-peace]

Don't know how it happened, but this post was for a topic on big vs small towns.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000975;p=5#000070

Tried to delete, but time expired by the time I found the goof! Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Wisdom Seeker]

unicorn n.
1.a. A fabled creature symbolic of virginity and usually represented as a horse with a single straight spiraled horn projecting from its forehead. b. Heraldry. A representation of this beast, having a horse's body, a stag's legs, a lion's tail, and a straight spiraled horn growing from its forehead, especially employed as a supporter for the Royal Arms of Great Britain or of Scotland.
2. Unicorn. Astronomy. The constellation Monoceros.
* Unicorn is mentioned 8 times in the Bible.

cockatrice n. Mythology.
A serpent hatched from a cock's egg and having the power to kill by its glance.
* Cockatrice is mentioned 4 times in the Bible.

If they were only mythology, why were the mentioned in the Bible? If they were real animals, why do they not exist today? Left off the ark? Extinct?

The Bible refers to the greek mythological characters Jupiter and Mercurius too. "And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. " Acts 14:12

Jupiter n.
1. Roman Mythology. The supreme god, patron of the Roman state and brother and husband of Juno. Also called Jove.

Mercury n.
1. Roman Mythology. A god that served as messenger to the other gods and was himself the god of commerce, travel, and thievery.

But we know that Paul and Barnabas were real people. But in Greek mythology, Jupiter and Mercurius or Mercury also exist.

What is mythology and what is real? Both? Neither? Were Paul and Barnabas named after mythological greek/roman gods or were the mytholigical greek/roman gods names for Paul and Barnabas?

I don't know...It just makes me go "hmmm"

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Scott J:
I would almost be willing to accept your analogy... but you aren't consistent with it. Following your example, if Jim (an MV) then pointed and said "car" and Bob(the KJV) said "car with spoiler", you would condemn Jim for giving a corrupt account... even if Jim in an earlier conversation had already said it was a "car with spoiler."

In short, if you apply your reasoning consistently you will stop condemning MV's.

the mv's teach the same doctrine, but sometimes with lessened emphasis overall, including the deity of jesus christ and the importance of fasting. of course most readers approach mv's with the first firmly in mind, but unfortunately not so for the second.

the main reason i reject mv's is not because of doctrine. even if they taught the same doctrine with the same emphasis i would still reject them. i don't believe we should be lightly tampering with the word of god, especially in such gross ways as has been done by the advocates of the secular science of textual criticism.

i apologize for the delay, i will address your other points in separate posts as i can...

 

[timothy 1769]

timothy: what's irrefutable is that fish can include whales, especially in popular usage.

scott: But we are not talking about "popular usage" according to you folks. We are talking about the God inspired words of the KJV. While people in 1611 and even now might be confused over what a whale is and what a fish is, God is not confused. So if "whale" were correct in the NT and "fish" is correct in the OT then we have an irreconcilable error in the actual words God inspired.

timothy: do you see that the meaning of words is determined by the consensus of people?

scott: Not God inspired words. The book of Jonah says 'fish' so the NT should say 'fish'. 'Fish' and 'whale' are not the same word. Remember your claim that "whales" included "fish". If it was limited to a great fish in the OT then it should be nothing more nor less than a great fish in the NT. Things different are not the same.

If the shoe were on the other foot and the NKJV had this disagreement, you would claim it as proof positive of its corruption.

timothy: i suppose i grant jesus a little more authority than the nkjv translation comittee.

scott: You seem like a pretty good fella and are very civil with your tactics. With that in mind, I will simply ask you to clarify what you meant here. Was it strictly a joke? If so, I really would appreciate a real answer rather than evasion.

ok, all i'm saying is that i think the kjv accurately reflects what jesus said, so if he wanted to inspire the word "fish" in jonah but say "whale" in person, that's his prerogative, which i would not extend to the nkjv translation committee

as i've shown, that's not an error in the kjv translation, as the term "fish" could include whales in 1611.

 

[timothy 1769]

i checked my OED, the second listed sense of "whale" is whatever swallowed jonah, with such usage dating back to 950 A.D.

the third sense is "whale of the river", a type of big fish.

the fourth sense is "any object resembling a whale".

 

[Ransom]

In other words, the second definition is tautologous and third and fourth are irrelevant.

 

[Ransom]

Laurenda asked:

If they were only mythology, why were the mentioned in the Bible?

Because the Hebrew words so translated in the KJV related to animals then unknown to the translators, as they acknowledge in their preface:

There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?

They took some liberties and translated these unidentified animals as fabulous beasts.

If they were real animals, why do they not exist today?

They are not real animals. There has never been a real unicorn or cockatrice.

But we know that Paul and Barnabas were real people. But in Greek mythology, Jupiter and Mercurius or Mercury also exist.

Jupiter and Mercury never existed. Greek mythology is false religion - fiction - idolatry.

 

[timothy 1769]

Originally posted by Ransom:
In other words, the second definition is tautologous and third and fourth are irrelevant.

it means that "whale" doesn't necessarily mean what best supports your position. the english language has no responsibility to live up to your expectations. if the OED doesn't satisfy you regarding the sense of words, i don't know what possibly could.

this use of "whale" is not an error in the kjv translation.