The real reason I am KJVO

[Keith M]

Ruh-roh! Duplicate post deleted!

 

[EdSutton]

Ed,I just wanted to correct a few things you said.First of all, John Wycliffe knew no Hebrew or Greek.He only knew English and Latin.And there is conflicting information about how much of an imput he had in the initial "Wycliffe Bible".John Purvey and Nicholas de Hereford certainly were the main translators of the second "Wycliffe Bible".

Point #2: The KJV committee adopted a great deal more than "almost half" of William Tyndale's work.Estimates range around 85% for the New Testament and 75% of his Old Testament work.

Please reread what I wrote.

I did not say what you deduced. My use of the words "and associates", in the case of Dr. Wycliffe, included his students/associates Purvey and Nicholas de Hereford (and others) as well. It is generally conceded that Nicholas de Hereford was the primary translator of the OT, I think. And that Purvey was the primary 'editor' of the revision, considering that Wycliffe died shortly after the initial 'Wycliffe' Bible appeared, and the 'revision', as more or less 'completed' (even though already ongoing), would not appear until a few years later.

I'm not sure it is entirely accurate to say that Wycliffe knew "no Hebrew or Greek", either. It is accurate to say that the Vulgate was used as the basis of both the OT and NT, however. I have read that Wycliffe and Co. did not have access to any reliable Greek 'texts', however, and that the Vulgate was a much better source than any 'Greek' they may have had access to, hence the employment of the Vulgate, which is a far different proposition, indeed.

And I think you are deducing wording about the TYN that I did not say, as well, considering I was merely "approximating" as to wording. The effective "influence" of the TYN is greater than half, to be sure; the effective actual wording and phrasing is "not hardly so much"' IMO.

A quick example might be what is likely the best known of all Bible verses - Jn. 3:16.

For God so loveth the worlde yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe. (TYN)

For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. (KJ-1611)

Any real difference in meaning between the two? Of course not!

And difference in spellings? Well, half a dozen words or so, which I underlined, not including the "u"/"v" and the "i"/"j" form changes, the second of which is not actually found in Jn. 3:16.

Grammar, tenses, mood, voice, etc. A few more, which I noted in blue.

Put them together and half is taken directly over; half is slightly 'modified'.

That is what I was intending to get across.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Ruh-roh! Duplicate post deleted!

"Stop that dog!!"

Ed

 

[ktn4eg]

Hello ktn4eg

Nice to hear from you.

You asked........

The way you put it, is as if you have asked this question before.

I will be glad to answer if for you.
--------------------------------------------------
Being KJVO, does not mean, that I believe it to be “the only truly God-breathed and totally inerrant Word of God”.

If you have read my posts, you will know, that I have NEVER said this.

I also disagree with those hype-kjvo folks, that lift it up as a newly inspired document.
--------------------------------------------------
But to answer your question;

Those people back through the centuries before the KJV(that spoke Greek), had the LXX(for the Old Testament) and original autographs of the epistles and their accurate copies.

And if they spoke English, there were other English Bibles that were available to them.
--------------------------------------------------
All I am saying, is that the MV’s(because of there [Don't you mean their? -- ktn4eg] roots), should not be trusted to be 100% accurate.

And the strange thing about it, is EVERYONE on this board, agrees with me.
(I have not been able to find anybody, that will say, any of the MV’s are 100% accurate.)

This the mind-set, that Satan wants us to have.

Fine.

Then, my next question would be this:

If the pre-1611 English Bibles were at least as accurate as the AV 1611 (From which, as the "Translators to the Reader" preface states, most of their NT content was taken [and in many cases verbatim from William Tyndale's translation], and which [and I'm positive that you already knew] also included the 11-14 books of the Apocrytha] from other previous English translations), what, then, was so obviously wrong/missing from those earlier translations that necessitated a brand-new translation in 1611?

PS --- FWIW, lest folks think I'm some hyper-anti KJV / pro-MV advocate: (A) My signature verses are quotes from the KJV, and
(B) Tabernacle BC; Lubbock TX should still have available my pamphlet defending as valid the KJV's use of "baptism" / "baptize."

 

[EdSutton]

Using the various Bible translations found at http:www.studylight.org I didn't find a single Bible translation that uses "young maiden" in Is. 7:14. Several translations (GNT, RSV, NRSV, ERV, CJB, BBE and JPS) use "young woman." The Message uses "a girl who is presently a virgin." HNV uses "almah," the original Hebrew word. And the New Life Bible uses "young woman who has never had a man." Last time I checked a young woman who had never had a man was - guess what? - yep, a virgin! Still, in these various translations, the reference made in Mt. 1:23 refers to a virgin. The only exceptions are the NLB which duplicates the Isaiah terminology with "young woman who has never had a man" and the JPS which is a Jewish OT only.

I actually did find a version (Man, how I would really like to add a three letter prefix to the word "version" here, which is something I do not recall ever using in any manner, to describe any Bible version!) that renders the relevant part of Isa. 7:14 with these words: "... the maiden herself will actually become pregnant, ...". Granted, it doesn't use the words "young maiden" but does use the word "maiden".

You can find this in that parody of Bible transla... - 'er I mean that paragon of Bile translat... (I apologize, that I'm having such a hard time phrasing this one right, so I will cease the attempt and just give the facts.) - you'll find this rendering in the NWT, okay?

Let me repeat that!




Ed

 

[Baptist4life]

Isaiah 7:14



Revised English Bible: "...a young woman is with child..."
Revised Standard Version: "...a young woman shall conceive..."
James Moffatt Translation: "...a young woman with child..."
New Revised Standard Version: "...the young woman is with child..."
New World Translation: "...the maiden herself will actually become pregnant..."
The Jerusalem Bible: "...the maiden is with child..."

 

[EdSutton]

If the pre-1611 English Bibles were at least as accurate as the AV 1611 (From which, as the "Translators to the Reader" preface states, most of their NT content was taken [and in many cases verbatim from William Tyndale's translation], and which [and I'm positive that you already knew] also included the 11-14 books of the Apocrytha] from other previous English translations), what, then, was so obviously wrong/missing from those earlier translations that necessitated a brand-new translation in 1611?

I have noticed that the Apocrypha somehow seems to bring on more amnesia than about anything else I've ever seen on the Baptist Board.

Incidentally, it's good to note that you are still out, even after Christmas.

Ed

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Isaiah 7:14



Revised English Bible: "...a young woman is with child..."
Revised Standard Version: "...a young woman shall conceive..."
James Moffatt Translation: "...a young woman with child..."
New Revised Standard Version: "...the young woman is with child..."
New World Translation: "...the maiden herself will actually become pregnant..."
The Jerusalem Bible: "...the maiden is with child..."

Funny how you didn't quote any of the common modern versions.

What do the following have?

NIV?
NKJV?
NASB?
HSCB?

 

[Baptist4life]

Funny how you didn't quote any of the common modern versions.

What do the following have?

NIV?
NKJV?
NASB?
HSCB?

Geez, LIGHTEN UP!! I just posted that in response to this:



Originally Posted by Keith M
Using the various Bible translations found at http:www.studylight.org I didn't find a single Bible translation that uses "young maiden" in Is. 7:14. Several translations (GNT, RSV, NRSV, ERV, CJB, BBE and JPS) use "young woman." The Message uses "a girl who is presently a virgin." HNV uses "almah," the original Hebrew word. And the New Life Bible uses "young woman who has never had a man." Last time I checked a young woman who had never had a man was - guess what? - yep, a virgin! Still, in these various translations, the reference made in Mt. 1:23 refers to a virgin. The only exceptions are the NLB which duplicates the Isaiah terminology with "young woman who has never had a man" and the JPS which is a Jewish OT only.

 

[Baptist4life]

You know, it gets REALLY old feeling like you're being ridiculed everytime you post something on here. I told myself I wasn't going to post anymore, found myself doing it, and now I see I need to get out of this "you're a newbie, and we stick up for our REGULAR posters no matter what they say" forum. I'll continue to read the threads because frankly the bias and un-Christlike attacks are very interesting, but you've "driven" me away with your "warm welcome".:tear: I'm sure this will probably get deleted because it's off topic, but I needed to say it, so I apologize. God bless.......and good bye................please try not to be so "critical" of new posters, or you'll find yourselves arguing with each other because you'll be the only ones here.

 

[Rippon]

Who needs to lighten up B4L?

 

[Keith M]

"Stop that dog!!"

Ed

Thanks, Ed! Are we the only two here who recognized the words of that famous philosopher Scooby Doo?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Isaish 7:14:

NIV: 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [a] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. [c]

The Message: Watch for this: A girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant. She'll bear a son and name him Immanuel (God-With-Us).

Today's NIV:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [a] a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and [c] will call him Immanuel. [d]

21st Century KJV: 14Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

 

[Keith M]

I actually did find a version (Man, how I would really like to add a three letter prefix to the word "version" here, which is something I do not recall ever using in any manner, to describe any Bible version!) that renders the relevant part of Isa. 7:14 with these words: "... the maiden herself will actually become pregnant, ...". Granted, it doesn't use the words "young maiden" but does use the word "maiden".

You can find this in that parody of Bible transla... - 'er I mean that paragon of Bile translat... (I apologize, that I'm having such a hard time phrasing this one right, so I will cease the attempt and just give the facts.) - you'll find this rendering in the NWT, okay?

Isaiah 7:14



Revised English Bible: "...a young woman is with child..."
Revised Standard Version: "...a young woman shall conceive..."
James Moffatt Translation: "...a young woman with child..."
New Revised Standard Version: "...the young woman is with child..."
New World Translation: "...the maiden herself will actually become pregnant..."
The Jerusalem Bible: "...the maiden is with child..."

Thanks, Ed and Baptist4life. Of the translations mentioned in your posts, only the RSV and the NRSV, which I mentioned in my post, were available at the web site I referenced. I find it a bit disturbing that anyone would put the Jehoveh's Witnesses' New World Translation in the same league as most other modern Bible translations. The NWT is one "translation" done with the intent of giving a cult a "bible" that agrees with their errant teachings. I also consider the Inspired Version (or the Joseph Smith Translation) of the Mormons and the Clear Word Translation of the Seventh Day Adventists on a par with the NWT - they were all "translated" to make it appear Scripture says things it never said. These I don't consider legitimate Bible translations.

 

[Keith M]

Isaish 7:14:

NIV: 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [a] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. [c]

The Message: Watch for this: A girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant. She'll bear a son and name him Immanuel (God-With-Us).

Today's NIV:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [a] a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and [c] will call him Immanuel. [d]

21st Century KJV: 14Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

Thanks for the input, Crabtownboy.

 

[Rippon]

I'm not sure it is entirely accurate to say that Wycliffe knew "no Hebrew or Greek", either.

Name one source that claims that Wycliffe knew either Greek or Hebrew.Back in the 14th century Oxford the original languages were not being taught.I have not found documentation to buttress your claim that John Wycliffe knew anything other than the English and Latin languages.

And I think you are deducing wording about the TYN that I did not say, as well, considering I was merely "approximating" as to wording. The effective "influence" of the TYN is greater than half, to be sure; the effective actual wording and phrasing is "not hardly so much"' IMO.

Despite your opinion, experts from the past and present have said that William Tyndale's translation was responsible for much more than half of the KJV N.T. and 75% of his translation work in the Old Testament.

 

[Keith M]

So they do subtle things, like changing “virgin” you "young maiden" in Isa.7:14

Did you really see "young maiden" in a Bible translation, stilllearning? If so, which translation was it? All the versions cited so far (some cited more than once) have similar phrasing, but the phrase "young maiden" doesn't appear.

 

[Rippon]

Sorry,this deals with EdSutton's post #38 in which he said :
Wycliffe theorized about atoms,and actually figured out things about the physical universe that would wait for another 200 years to be 'discovered' and understood,with thefindings of such as Galileo,Brahe, and Copernicus.
______________________________________________________________

Ed,I don't know where you are getting your info,but I think you are confused about Wycliffe.His mentor Thomas Bradwardine (1290-1349) dealt with those scientific matters as did Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253).Wycliffe had a great interest in math and science but did not probe the depths as did these two or Roger Bacon (1214-1294).

 

[Ed Edwards]

The regular posters (who fight for each other) have all agreed not to use the word 'Geez' here on the Bible Forum because it belittles the Blessed & Glorious Name 'Jesus' of our Blessed Lord and Savior: Messiah Jesus.

I even used to warn everybody that the Prime Directive of Bulletin Boards (bbs) is:

Read before you write.

 

[Keith M]

The regular posters (who fight for each other) have all agreed not to use the word 'Geez' here on the Bible Forum because it belittles the Blessed & Glorious Name 'Jesus' of our Blessed Lord and Savior: Messiah Jesus.

I even used to warn everybody that the Prime Directive of Bulletin Boards (bbs) is:

Read before you write.

That's a good point, Ed. A similar phrase is "Geezul Pete" which is also quite common.