Translation problem Gal. 2:21 (KJV)

[StefanM]

Your point is well taken. However, I still think we err when we jump to the conclusion that a mistake was made simply because it doesn't look right to us.

I wish we could think with 17th century minds so that we could know that that meant when they read it. But we can't, and therefore, because of the excellent track record of the KJV translators I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think this would be jumping to a conclusion. Almost all other translations both contemporary and historical render the verb "died." There are no textual variants of note.

I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if there were any basis for doubt. However, I know of no evidence that would make "is dead" preferable to "died," or, for that matter, even acceptable. They had a good track record, but they weren't perfect.

 

[Rippon]

This whole "Christ is dead" issue reminds me of the Marrow Controversy . Thomas Boston had said :"Christ is dead for you." That got him and the other so-called Marrowmen in a lot of hot water at that time .

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I don't think this would be jumping to a conclusion. Almost all other translations both contemporary and historical render the verb "died." There are no textual variants of note.

I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if there were any basis for doubt. However, I know of no evidence that would make "is dead" preferable to "died," or, for that matter, even acceptable. They had a good track record, but they weren't perfect.

Not saying there is a textual varient, only that "died" and "is dead" (in this context) may have been synonymous.

Today, obviously, died is a better choice.

 

[The Scribe]

I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if there were any basis for doubt. However, I know of no evidence that would make "is dead" preferable to "died," or, for that matter, even acceptable. They had a good track record, but they weren't perfect.

God's word is perfect and he isn't going to let his word pass away. The Geneva has one word and the KJV has another, that mean the same thing. The Geneva is older English than the KJV. It doesn't matter. The wording in the KJV is fine.


Luke 21:33 (KJV)
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

I thought this was a Baptist message board? Why all he hate and misquoting of the KJV?

 

[Rippon]

Not saying there is a textual varient, only that "died" and "is dead" (in this context) may have been synonymous.

Today, obviously, died is a better choice.

And in 1395 !

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I thought this was a Baptist message board? Why all he hate and misquoting of the KJV?

An open discussion is hardly hatred. And if there is misquoting of the KJV please link it so we can deal with it.

 

[StefanM]

God's word is perfect and he isn't going to let his word pass away. The Geneva has one word and the KJV has another, that mean the same thing. The Geneva is older English than the KJV. It doesn't matter. The wording in the KJV is fine.


Luke 21:33 (KJV)
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

I thought this was a Baptist message board? Why all he hate and misquoting of the KJV?

You make no arguments from the text. Yours is an a priori assumption that the KJV must be accurate.

Baptists are not all KJVO or even KJV preferred. Since when is this misquoting? I don't believe I have misquoted the KJV. I do not hate the KJV, but I think that at this point the translation is inferior.

 

[Rippon]

You make no arguments from the text. Yours is an a priori assumption that the KJV must be accurate.

Baptists are not all KJVO or even KJV preferred. Since when is this misquoting? I don't believe I have misquoted the KJV. I do not hate the KJV, but I think that at this point the translation is inferior.

Doncha' know that pointing out any errors in the 1611 series is the same as 'hating the KJV' ? Demonstrating mistakes in those KJV's means 'attacks' in their estimation.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Doncha' know that pointing out any errors in the 1611 series is the same as 'hating the KJV' ? Demonstrating mistakes in those KJV's means 'attacks' in their estimation.

Still not convinced that an error has been pointed out or a mistake demonstrated. A possible error or potential mistake has been discussed, but neither proven.

However, your point is well taken Ripp.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... The Geneva has one word and the KJV has another, that mean the same thing...

So far, no evidence has been displayed that supports this assertion. Feel free to cite your authoritative sources, if you have any.

... The Geneva is older English than the KJV...

The Geneva text was first published before the AV (KJV), but the king's revisors intentionally applied Elizabethan language (older than the vernacular of their own day) to the KJV text. The Geneva Bible was reissued in various editions well beyond 1611, but I cannot say how much, if any, updated the language.

 

[The Scribe]

An open discussion is hardly hatred. And if there is misquoting of the KJV please link it so we can deal with it.

Try the first post. There's nothing to debate except someone doesn't like the KJV's wording. This thread should be closed.

Baptists are not all KJVO or even KJV preferred. Since when is this misquoting? I don't believe I have misquoted the KJV. I do not hate the KJV, but I think that at this point the translation is inferior.

Then they are Baptist in name only.

 

[StefanM]

Try the first post. There's nothing to debate except someone doesn't like the KJV's wording. This thread should be closed.





Then they are Baptist in name only.

You don't have the right to declare who can and who cannot be baptist. KJVOism is not a historic baptist position.

The debate regards the wording. Is it accurate or not? That's a legitimate question. I guarantee that you would have no objection if I asked about a verse in the NIV.

 

[The Scribe]

You don't have the right to declare who can and who cannot be baptist. KJVOism is not a historic baptist position.

The debate regards the wording. Is it accurate or not? That's a legitimate question. I guarantee that you would have no objection if I asked about a verse in the NIV.

Like it or not, I just did. :saint:

[Bible attack sniped]

 

[StefanM]

Why are you even participating? You have no interest in debating the issue.

You think that the KJV is perfect. We know that. We also know that you have no interest in doing anything beyond declaring it to be such.

 

[StefanM]

Like it or not, I just did. :saint:

You can declare yourself to be King James, and it wouldn't make you a monarch, either.

 

[The Scribe]

Why are you even participating? You have no interest in debating the issue.

You think that the KJV is perfect. We know that. We also know that you have no interest in doing anything beyond declaring it to be such.

:applause:

You can declare yourself to be King James, and it wouldn't make you a monarch, either.

 

[TCGreek]

Like it or not, I just did. :saint:

The NIV should be [Bible attack sniped].

Even though a version is not my preference, I've never brought myself to say such a thing.

Scribe, you've lost my respect.

 

[The Scribe]

Even though a version is not my preference, I've never brought myself to say such a thing.

Scribe, you've lost my respect.

Sorry you feel that way. But, the NIV is [attack on Bible snipped]

How I Know That The King James Bible Is The Word Of God by James Melton

The King James Version of the Bible

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Bible attacks have been snipped.

Lets move on and discuss the topic please.

 

[TCGreek]

Thank you, Roger.